Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BERKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

BRISTOL CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]

Bills read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (By Order)

CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY BILL (By Order)

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

Bills to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

D. & J. FOWLER LIMITED AND ASSOCIATED COMPANY BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (NEWHAVEN BRIDGE) BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

HARINGEY CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

Bills to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

KESTEVEN COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK (NORTH CENTRAL FINANCE & LOMBARD BANKING) BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

STOCKPORT CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

TORBAY CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

European Economic Community

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the progress of his discussions with the brewing industry with respect to the European Economic Community draft directive on brewing.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): Our discussions have enabled us to identify the points we would consider with the European Economic Community should developments on the draft directive make this appropriate.

Dr. Gilbert: The Minister will be aware that nothing has yet been settled by the Europeans as to what they will do on this subject. Is he making any representations to the Europeans about this in the interests of British beer drinkers?

Mr. Stodart: We do not regard it as possible at this stage to get E.E.C. action on the draft postponed as it is a matter for the E.E.C. There have been discussions.

Mr. Lipton: In the course of these discussions, is the Minister bearing in mind the need to abolish the tied house system in this country?

Mr. Stodart: That is entirely outside the scope of the E.E.C. draft directive.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what would be the advantages to Great Britain in an enlarged Community of the relatively large average size of farms in Great Britain.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): The country will benefit as a member of an enlarged Community by increased agricultural production and, generally speaking, large farms should be more efficient producers than small ones.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the average size of the British farm is much larger

than that of Continental ones and that larger farms than the average should do better with the higher prices which will accrue to this country after we join the E.E.C.?

Mr. Prior: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Because of the structure of our industry, the scale of our enterprises, the size of our farms and the skill of our farmers, our farmers need have no fears about the Common Market.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is no secret that many farmers, especially small farmers, will have to go out of business if we enter the E.E.C.? Obviously, he has made calculations with regard to the numbers involved. Will he now be candid and tell the House what his calculations are in this matter?

Mr. Prior: For one thing there is no secret, and, for another, I think that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is complete and utter nonsense.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the newly introduced farming levy will prove an advantage to Great Britain when it comes to adapting to Community farm policy.

Mr. Prior: The interim import levy schemes will, when introduced, provide some of the mechanism that will be required to implement the common agricultural policy and will give valuable experience in operating it.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that in order to take full advantage of joining the E.E.C. and the higher level of import levy, farming capital is required, and that this is gravely short at the moment?

Mr. Prior: This is tending to edge towards a question about the Farm Price Review, about which negotiations are about to begin. I think that I had better not comment.

Mr. Marten: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Guildhall on 1st February, when he said that if we enter the Common Market we shall provide a large and expanding export market in agriculture for the Common Market countries?

Mr. Prior: That is just facing up to facts, as my right hon. Friend always does. There is no doubt that there will be increased exports from Common Market countries to this country if we join, but that is another reason why British agriculture should also expand.

Sir Clive Bossom: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what level he is holding discussions with the National Farmers' Union on matters affecting British agriculture during the negotiations on British entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. Prior: The National Farmers' Union has been kept fully in touch with the progress of the negotiations. I and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster met the President of the union on 5th February for cordial and useful talks.

Sir Clive Bossom: I am confident that my right hon. Friend is making every effort to obtain the best possible terms, but is he aware that the horticulturists feel that they have been left out in the cold, especially the apple growers? They want further discussions and more information, because they want to plan their own future.

Mr. Prior: I am well aware of what I know to be a serious problem, particularly for apple and pear growers. At the same time as we saw the President of the National Farmers' Union we saw the Chairman of the Central Horticultural Committee of the N.F.U. There are regular meetings between my officials concerned with the negotiations and those gentlemen. If there is anything further that I can do, I shall certainly try.

Mrs. Renée Short: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that at the N.F.U. annual conference very recently the farmers forecast the worst slump since the 1930s, with many bankruptcies and a great deal of unemployment among farmers and farm workers, and on explosive rise in food prices? What has he to say about that?

Mr. Prior: Two things: first, this has nothing to do with the Common Market; second, it is an apt commentary on hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Cockeram: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he

will give details of the decline in the numbers of agricultural workers in the European Economic Community and in the United Kingdom over the past 10 years.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: Between 1959 and 1969 the number of agricultural workers in the United Kingdom declined by 286,000. There is no comparable figure for the European Economic Community.

Mr. Cockeram: Does my hon. Friend agree that the decline in the number of workers in agriculture in this country and the increased output that has taken place over the period augurs well for the British farmer competing against agriculture within the Six?

Mr. Stodart: The fact that despite that fall in agricultural manpower productivity has been rising by between 5 and 6 per cent. a year is an excellent testimony to what my hon. Friend has just said.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Can the Minister explain why both he and his right hon. Friend can never give any facts and figures concerning the E.E.C. when they are of an adverse character but can always give them when they are pro-E.E.C? To what extent has he discussed these matters with the agricultural workers' union as well as the N.F.U.?

Mr. Stodart: I should not have thought that what I have just said would necessarily reflect at all badly upon the E.E.C. Therefore, I reject the hon. Gentleman's premise.

Mr. Rankin: Will the introduction of factory farming into this country not reduce the number of agricultural workers still further? What will the Minister do about that?

Mr. Stodart: I have a suspicion that the hon. Gentleman has not realised that we have moved on from the last Question.

Beers (Alcoholic Content)

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will require the brewing industry to indicate the minimum alcoholic content that their draught and bottled beers possess at the time they are put in bottle or cask.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: No, Sir. Such a declaration could be misleading.

Dr. Gilbert: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in a supplementary answer by one of his colleagues just before Christmas I was told that the only objection was one of practicality, the reason being given that some brews continue to ferment in the bottle or cask. This question takes care of this problem of practicality. There is no reason at all why— —

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) must not make observations; he must ask questions.

Mr. Stodart: It is wise that we should look at the experience of other countries which have tried this. In Canada the declaration of alcoholic content is prohibited as it is thought that it might lead to increased drunkenness. The Netherlands require it as a means of encouraging temperance, but it is said to have had precisely the opposite effect.

Food Prices

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the effect of the increase in oil prices over the last six months on retail food prices.

Mr. Prior: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to hydrocarbon oil products. Any such effect would be very small, but all increased costs militate against stable prices.

Mr. Eadie: Since we are told that there are about six months' oil supplies in the country, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that when prices are increased, as they will be, he will not allow profiteering on the existing supplies, which would mitigate against the consumer and increase the cost of living?

Mr. Prior: It is not for me to give that sort of assurance. The increase in prices which will result from any increase in oil prices will be very small.

Mr. Evelyn King: In his capacity as Minister of Food, will my right hon. Friend consider whether differential taxation in respect of transport, rates, selective employment tax or anything else that he can think of can bring relief to food retailers, who need help?

Mr. Prior: I agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's question. The first part of it is not a matter for which I am responsible, but I will draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friends.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a further statement on the level of food prices and how much they have risen compared with the general level of incomes since June, 1970.

Mr. Prior: Between June and November, the latest date for which comparable figures are available, the Food Index increased by 0·6 per cent. and the Index of Average Earnings by 3·4 per cent.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is still a good deal of concern about retail food prices? Will he step along his corridor, see the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask him to abolish selective employment tax in his next Budget, since it makes such a significant contribution to all retail food prices?

Mr. Prior: As I have said already, these are matters for my right hon. Friends. But we are pledged to abolish S.E.T. within the lifetime of this Parliament, and, unlike right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, we keep our election pledges.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bexley Housewives' Protection League is gravely concerned at the way in which food prices are soaring? If he receives representations from that body, will he undertake to give them proper consideration?

Mr. Prior: That was a supplementary question which the hon. Gentleman wished to ask on the previous Question. But, of course, I will always give due attention to the Housewives' League or any other body which contacts me.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the percentage of its income spent by the average family on food has decreased over the past 12 months?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. That is perfectly true. The process has been going on now for a number of years.

Mr. Barnes: Is not the price of manufactured food products likely to go up by at least 10 per cent. in 1971? In view of that, would not the Government be in a better position to secure the co-operation of sections of the community like the Post Office workers if they acted directly to restrain increases of this order, as they said they would originally?

Mr. Prior: I do not want to be tied to any figure that the hon. Gentleman offers as being the likely increase in the prices of manufactured food products. However, it is true that by far the largest element of costs in manufactured food products is the price of labour. If we can get inflation under control, we shall be able to reduce these prices.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what analysis he is making of the effects of competition in stabilising food prices.

Mr. Prior: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) on 8th December.—[Vol. 808, c. 59.]

Mr. Barnes: While the claim that competition will stabilise prices may be an important part of the Government's new philosophy, to which the Minister frequently refers, is it not the case that it has little relationship to the realities of the food marketing situation at present? The trade itself is forecasting a likely increase of 10 per cent. on the retail price of manufactured food products during 1971. Will the Minister tell us what has to happen to prices before he is prepared to act directly to restrain increases of this order?

Mr. Prior: We hear all this talk about acting directly on food prices. This is what the previous Government tried to do by the early warning system, but prices rose during the last five years more than twice as fast as in our last five years.

Mr. Bowden: I accept my right hon. Friend's contention that competition will affect prices. However, will he ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to look at the case of the old-age pensioners, who have been hit particularly hard by food price increases in the last 18 months?

Mr. Prior: I agree with my hon. Friend. The old-age pensioners and those on fixed incomes suffer most as a result of inflation. As we deal with inflation, we shall help to get the position under control.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the operation of the information service on essential key food prices, which he has introduced in place of the previous early warning system.

Mr. Prior: The purpose of the new arrangements is to keep me informed of prospective movements in the prices of certain major products with which I am concerned. I am circulating a full list of the products in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The industries concerned have agreed to co-operate.

Mr. Barnes: Will the Minister also circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, or let us know, what information is being asked for from the firms concerned? As the Minister is so pleased that he has dismantled my right hon. Friend's warning system, may I ask what is the point of getting this information? What will he do with it when he has got it?

Mr. Prior: I consider that it is important that I should know what is happening to the prices of important items. That is the main purpose of obtaining the information. The early warning system did not stop prices rising. We shall stop prices rising in this country only if we do not pay ourselves more for doing no more work.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether under his revised system he will be able to detect the influence on food prices caused by such intangible but very important price advances as the proposed 6d. a gallon increase in the price of petrol?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. We have a very full department looking at this type of problem the whole time, and we are able accurately to assess that type of increase, and a good many others too.

Miss Lestor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many parts of the country it is becoming impossible for retirement pensioners and others living


alone to buy less than six eggs, large packets of pre-packed cheese and large packets of pre-packed bacon? Has the Minister any instructions for retailers and others about how they can help people in this predicament?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Lady has raised a very important matter. I should like to look into it to see whether there is anything which I can do to help. Certainly I feel that retail shops should do everything in their power to be of assistance in this kind of matter.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the early warning system was a deterrent over a long period? If the Minister finds that increases are not justified, what steps will he then take?

Mr. Prior: The early warning system was a singularly ineffective deterrent, because it resulted in prices going up 25·9 per cent. in the last five years compared with 11·4 per cent. in the previous five years. I am not prepared to come to the House and introduce what I consider to be merely public relations measures which have no bearing on the problem.

Following is the list of products:

Bread and flour.
Cakes and biscuits.
Tea and coffee.
Margarine and cooking fats.
Canned and frozen vegetables.
Chocolate and sugar confectionery.
Beer.
Animal feedingstuffs (compounds and concentrates).

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has received from food manufacturers and distributors about price policy after decimalisation; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Prior: Pricing policy is a matter for the firms concerned, but I see no reason why decimalisation should affect their price policies.

Mr. Judd: and betrayal amongst a wide cross-section of the British public, particularly those on small and limited incomes, at the Government's doctrinaire refusal to intervene on price increases? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government will deal remorselessly with anyone who tries an

inflationary and anti-social process by profiteering following decimalisation?

Mr. Prior: There are two parts to that question. On the part dealing with decimalisation, I am quite certain that vigilance and publicity of cases where perhaps retail shops are putting up their prices are extremely important and are the best safeguards. I have already covered the other part of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Peter Mills: Does my hon. Friend agree that decimalisation is not really the problem at the moment regarding increased prices? It is the Transport Act and all the other Measures which the previous Government brought in. They are the guilty people and they have a real nerve to come to this House and say what they do.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That sounded more like a comment than a question.

Mr. Prior: It was an excellent comment, Mr. Speaker, and one with which I agree.

Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he is taking any special precautions or making any examination of the trend in prices in the period immediately following decimalisation? Is the Minister aware that in New Zealand three or four weeks after decimalisation there was an upsurge in prices? Should not the right hon. Gentleman be doing something about it of commending the efforts of the Young Liberals in this sphere?

Mr. Prior: I thought that the Liberal Party found it difficult to commend the efforts of the Young Liberals; so I should not be expected to do so.
We are monitoring prices in the next fortnight, as we always do; and the fortnight immediately after decimalisation comes in they will also be monitored. My advice to housewives is to complain to the shops, and, if not satisfied, to shop elsewhere.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what action he will take before, not only after, decimalisation? Is he aware that particularly in some supermarkets Marvel Milk, for instance, costs as much as 10d. more for the same size of tin and that when such matters are referred to his Department


nothing is done? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he is going to do about it?

Mr. Prior: It ill becomes hon. Gentlemen opposite to make this row now about decimalisation. After all, they dragooned their members through the Lobby for a Bill which they did not want, and now they are having to pay for it.

Mr. Strang: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a full explanation of the assumptions and calculations supporting his estimate of the likely increase in food prices as a result of changing over to the levy system.

Mr. Prior: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 7th December.—[Vol. 808, c. 39–40.]

Mr. Strang: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people feel that he is deliberately understating the effect which his new policy will have on food prices? In view of his repeated claims for his new policy, does he not accept that he has an obligation to the House to publish a full and detailed explanation of the basis for these estimates?

Mr. Prior: I will, of course, consider what the hon. Gentleman has said. Since we are only in the process of introducing an interim levy system which is designed to limit Exchequer support, rather than go further than that, it would be premature to go further than I have been able to go at the moment. My assessment at the moment is that the levies which we propose would, over the next three or four years, add perhaps up to 5–6 per cent. to the cost of food during that time, an increase in the cost of food of just over 1 per cent. per year.

Housewives' League (Representations)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations on matters for which he is responsible he has received from the Housewives' League; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Prior: As I have previously told the hon. Member and other hon. Members, this type of information is not readily available and cannot be obtained

without disproportionate cost.—[Vol. 809, c. 239; Vol. 808, c. 59–60.]

Mr. Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman has answered the wrong Question, I believe.

Mr. Prior: No; I have answered No. 4.

Mr. Eadie: rose

Mr. Wellbeloved: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) must make up his mind whether he wants to ask a supplementary question.

Mr. Eadie: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman could not make up his mind. I was trying to assist him. Are we to take it from his answer that we must regard the Housewives' League as a Tory front organisation which protests only when Administrations other than Tory ones are in office?

Mr. Prior: It is obvious from that supplementary question that I gave the right answer. We get a large number of letters on a variety of subjects. Although they are all answered, an immense cost would be involved if we attempted to tabulate them all so that we knew exactly the organisations from which they came and the topics which they raised.

Brucellosis

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a further statement on the dangers of brucellosis, to humans and animals.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: My right hon. Friends are fully aware of the brucellosis risk to both human and animal health, and are determined to expunge the disease from our cattle population as soon as practicable. Introduction of the new Brucellosis Incentives Scheme has speeded up progress in this direction, and the first compulsory eradication areas are to be announced in the spring.

Sir G. Nabarro: While commending my hon. Friend on his choice of words, which precisely fits my needs in this context, may I ask whether, although progress is being made towards the desirable state of totally expunging brucellosis in


humans, it would not be better to regard brucellosis as a prescribed industrial disease?

Mr. Stodart: ; This is under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) on 20th November last.

Mr. John Wells: Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) to the fact that this disease in humans has recently been rechristened "The Kissing Disease"?

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: While congratulating the Minister and his hon. Friend on adopting the scheme that we introduced for the eradication of brucellosis, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that it is vital now to get on with the area eradication schemes? He promised us a date some months ago. Can he say when area eradication schemes will be announced, because farmers are waiting for this information?

Mr. Stodart: We are awating the final results of the screening tests being carried out by the Milk Marketing Board. I hope to be in a position to give the House this information in the next few weeks.

Thames Barrage

Mr. Trew: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the Essex and Kent River Authorities will have progressed far enough with their technical investigations to enable him to publish an estimate of the cost of the flood defences in Essex and Kent arising out of or associated with the Thames Flood Barrier.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: The problems associated with raising the estuarial flood defences in Essex and Kent are extremely complex and are likely to have a material effect on cost. Ministry engineers are in close consultation with the two river authorities, but it is too early to forecast when reliable cost figures will be available.

Mr. Trew: Is my hon. Friend aware of the grave concern amongst ratepayers

and riparian owners in Kent and Essex about the possible financial burden arising from these works? Will he take an early opportunity to publish his proposals for financing them?

Mr. Stodart: As soon as we have got the rather complex problems worked out, I will endeavour to do as my hon. Friend asks. The question of grant aid has been agreed in principle for the river authority works. It is true that the actual financial arrangements have still to be agreed. I will endeavour to ensure that they are agreed as soon as possible.

Home Market

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure for the home farmer an increasing share in the home market.

Mr. Prior: It is the Government's intention to change the system of agricultural support and we have already taken steps to that end. When a full and comprehensive levy system has been introduced, it will help the expansion of an efficient agriculture by preventing low-priced imports from undermining the market.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the answer given to me on 18th January in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that he saw no prospect of any reduction in the level of agricultural import quotas? In the circumstances, can my right hon. Friend explain how he expects to secure a larger proportion of the market for our farmers, and, as this is an area of policy in which farmers think that the Minister of Agriculture is able to represent their interests, what is he doing to show them that that is his policy?

Mr. Prior: I assume from my hon. Friend's remarks that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was speaking in terms of Eastern European quotas, since the only commodities that we import under quota come from Eastern Europe. Levy schemes as such will raise prices in this country, so that the farmer will get his return from the market. This should enable him to expand production and compete favourably with other countries.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House is becoming concerned about the progress of his negotiations on these levies with overseas exporters? Can he say what progress he is making and when he will be able to give us details? It is said that New Zealand and Australia are especially concerned about the levies that he is seeking to impose. Can he be a little more precise and say what will be the effect of levies on imports of foodstuffs, especially of such commodities as beef, butter and cheese?

Mr. Prior: Talks are still going on. They are of a confidential nature. I am not yet in a position to make a statement to the House, but as soon as I am, I will do so. In the meantime, the negotiations are proceeding, and they cover the commodities which the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned.

Rabbits

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his proposals to ensure that the rabbit population does not increase.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I propose to leave it almost entirely to farmers and other occupiers of land to take the appropriate steps, in their own self-interest, to keep their rabbits under proper control as the law requires.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Is my hon. Friend aware that that policy was adopted during the period when there were very heavy losses from an enormous rabbit population and that the rabbit clearance societies enabled the less responsible farmers to have their land as well as common land cleared of rabbits? What is the Minister going to do about it?

Mr. Stodart: Grants will continue for the clearing of scrubland. My Department will be responsible for common and derelict land where responsible persons are unknown. I believe that it is right that an animal which can cause an immense amount of damage to a farmer's growing crops should be tackled by the farmer who will suffer the loss if he does not do so.

Mr. Mackie: The policy being put forward by the hon. Gentleman failed in

the past and its failure was the reason for the rabbit clearance societies. It having failed in the past, may I ask why the hon. Gentleman thinks that it should succeed in future?

Mr. Stodart: I do not think that spending £500,000 of public money doing something which farmers ought to do for themselves is justified.

Potatoes (Prices)

Mr. Brewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the course of potato prices for the remainder of the current season.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I expect producer prices for maincrop potatoes to show their usual seasonal increases, helped by the success of the Potato Marketing Board's support buying programme. There will be some consequential increases in wholesale and retail prices, but they should remain well below last year's levels.

Mr. Brewis: Could my hon. Friend give an assurance that prices will be reasonable towards the end of the season in May, but that, at the same time, the early potato crop in June from Scottish areas will not mean dumped imports from abroad?

Mr. Stodart: On the first part of that Question, prices are expected to rise by some £10 a ton from their present level by the end of the season. But, as I have already said, retail prices should even then be below those of last year. On the second part of the question, it is a little early, when one does not know what sort of planting season we shall have apart from anything else, to forecast the position there.

Fall-Back Guarantee Prices

Mr. Strang: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the fall-back guarantee price envisaged in the proposed new system of agriculture support will be guaranteed by deficiency payments.

Mr. Prior: Fall-back guarantee will not be required under the proposed interim levy schemes since the present guaranteed prices will continue. The precise form


that the fall-back arrangements should take under comprehensive levy schemes is still being considered. They will need to be adapted to the needs and considerations of each commodity.

Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that prior to the General Election the agricultural industry was under the impression that, inevitably, a Conservative Government would back up the fall-back price with a deficiency payment, so that that fall-back price was a reality? If that is no longer the Minister's position, will he explain to the industry that the deficiency payments system may be removed completely?

Mr. Prior: No, we have never maintained, and no one has ever said, that the deficiency payments system would continue once we reached the stage of fallback guarantees. What we have made abundantly clear is that in the transitional period—in other words, for the next three or four years—the guaranteed prices system will continue as it is now, and during that time we shall have consultations with the National Farmers' Union and other interested bodies to see how best to implement the fall-back guarantee and at what level.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Would the Minister be more precise on a very important point? Will he confirm that the fall-back guarantee will be a safety net, and a very low one, and that it will be used only in case of some emergency, which could well happen?

Mr. Prior: I do not want to get drawn into a discussion of the level of the fallback guarantee at this stage, because no decision has been reached and no consultations have yet taken place. Certainly, the fall-back guarantee will be set at levels lower than the existing guarantee, but we shall be moving more towards target prices than we have done at the moment.

Foodstuffs (Nutritive Values)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the regulations governing the nutritive values of foodstuffs.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and

Food if he will introduce regulations to ensure minimum nutritional standards, and to regulate nutritional claims, in food.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: There are 27 regulations laying down compositional standards which ensure a minimum nutritive value for specified foods. Nutritional claims for all foods are controlled by the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, and by labelling regulations.

Mr. Douglas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Would he not accept that the general public are becoming disturbed about the apparent deficiencies in our regulations compared with those of countries like the United States and Canada? Will he institute a survey in his Ministry of the comparison between our regulations and those of the United States and Canada to see whether we can tighten them up in view of other products which are coming on to the market?

Mr. Stodart: I am aware of the recent review in the United States. I think that conditions are entirely different there. There is no shortage of essential nutrients in this country; the nutrient content of the nation's diet as a whole is satisfactory. I am prepared to look at this, but not, I think, to embark on a great exercise in depth.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: What further studies have been made by the hon. Gentleman's expert advisers since the regulations were made last year to take into account the ever-growing number of processed foods and the lack of adequate nutrition among elderly people and other groups? When he is considering this matter further, would he undertake to review those regulations in the light of these developments?

Mr. Stodart: I can assure the hon. Lady that these matters are kept under continuous review.

Pigs (Intensive Livestock Production)

Mr. Burden: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to abolish the use of sow stalls in which the animal spends its life and in which it can neither walk nor turn round.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: The Pigs Code provides that where sows are housed individually they should be able to feed and lie down normally and that if tethers are used they should not cause injury or distress. My right hon. Friend does not feel justified in banning the use of sow stalls.

Mr. Burden: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the code is advisory only, that there is nothing mandatory in it, and that unless restrictions are imposed in these matters there will be considerable cruelty? If my hon. Friend feels so strongly about this, will he see that the code is observed?

Mr. Stodart: With great respect to my hon. Friend, neither he nor I knows whether cruelty will be caused. This is a matter of opinion. The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) when he was Minister, with our support, asked the Farm Animal Welfare Committee and the State Veterinary Service to go into the matter. They have done so, and have laid their findings. We have placed them in the Library. That is more expert advice than my hon. Friend or I are capable of giving.

Mr. Molloy: Is the Minister aware that there is profound feeling in the country about some aspects of factory farming, notwithstanding the technical reports to which he has referred? If he is so confident that he can rest his argument on those reports, would he be prepared to see a deputation from the National Society for the Abolition of Factory Farming, which consists of a good cross-section of the community, to put some other facts before him?

Mr. Stodart: I am perfectly aware—no one could fail to be—of public thinking upon the matter. I am always ready to see people who wish to discuss such matters with me. But I return to the fact that we cannot do better than accept the advice of those who know more about this than we do.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH HEADS OF GOVERNMENT MEETING (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECHES)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library copies of all the official speeches

which he made at the recent Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): No, Sir. The proceedings of Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings are confidential.

Mr. Hamilton: How, then, does the Prime Minister explain the contents of a letter that I have received from the Library today stating that copies are being sent over to the Library today? Did any of the right hon. Gentleman's speeches include the advice that his legal advisers gave him about the legal obligations entailed in the Simonstown Agreement? If they did not, and if he had that advice at the Commonwealth Conference, why did not he explain that to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers?

The Prime Minister: I have no knowledge of any Commonwealth Conference speeches being placed in the Library. I have already told the House, when I returned from the Conference, that I explained to the Heads of Government there, first, what we considered to be the legal obligations on the British Government, and, secondly, what we believed to be in the general interests of British policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICA (VISIT)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to seek to pay an official visit to South Africa.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Is that because the right hon. Gentleman has neither the time nor the inclination? Does he not recognise that Mr. Vorster has been saying some very kind things about him? In view of that desire for friendship of Mr. Vorster, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he should reciprocate in some way?

The Prime Minister: It does not in any way alter my approach, that at present I have no plans to go to South Africa. If the hon. Gentleman has in mind much deeper question as to the right way to deal with South African problems, I adhere to the view I have expressed in the House before, that trying


to ostracise South Africa does not produce the results that we want to see.

Mr. Evelyn King: Does my right hon. Friend accept that whatever opinion may be held by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), no speeches ever made by the Prime Minister more accurately reflected public opinion than those he made in Singapore?

Mr. Buchan: Will the Prime Minister reconsider the position? After all, it may be the only place that he might visit where he will get a welcome.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER (MEETING)

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to meet the Prime Minister of Canada.

The Prime Minister: Following our recent meetings in Ottawa, Delhi and Singapore, there are at present no plans for a further meeting.

Mr. Davidson: When the Prime Minister does meet Mr. Trudeau, will he bear in mind that his sense of humour is bound to be a little more sophisticated than that of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite? Will he not insult the intelligence of the Prime Minister of Canada by pretending to him that there is an overall strategic reason for supplying arms to South Africa?

The Prime Minister: The Prime Minister of Canada fully appreciated the reasons which I put to him, and also recognised that Canada has not the same interests in the trade routes in the Indian Ocean as Britain has.

Mr. Thorpe: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the Prime Minister of Canada fully appreciates the arguments he put forward, he would not, I am sure, wish to imply, or to have the House under the misapprehension, that the Prime Minister of Canada agrees with or accepts any part of his argument. Will he at least correct the record in that regard? Does he not accept that we are very surprised that the Prime Minister does not wish to keep in closer contact with those whom he regards as his chief allies in the defence of the free world—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—by visit

ing Mr. Vorster, whose anti-Communism is such—[Interruption.]—that 90 per cent.—

Sir R. Cary: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the rule suspended for the Leader of the Liberal Party's supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: My purpose is to get through as many Questions as possible, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) to be brief.

Mr. Thorpe: I will conclude in 30 seconds, barring interruptions. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Vorster's anti-communism is such that 90 per cent. of right hon. and hon. Members of this House, under South African law and South African standards, would be regarding themselves as Communist?

The Prime Minister: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had learnt from his experience yesterday of his daily increasing danger of boring and wearying the House with his charges. [Interruption.] I did not say that Mr. Trudeau agreed with any policy put forward by the British Government, and, therefore, the record does not need correcting. What I said was that he appreciated the argument and accepted that the decision is one for Britain, and Britain alone.

Mr. Harold Wilson: So that both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Vorster can know what Her Majesty's Government's intentions are about arms, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he intends to make a statement in the House on the Government's policy with regard to the shipment to South Africa of all those arms that were not in the very narrow list which the right hon. Gentleman's own Law Officers regard the Government as obligated to supply under the Simonstown Agreement? When he next meets Mr. Trudeau, will the Prime Minister make clear to him that what he said in Canada publicly about his obligation has been disproved even by his own Law Officers?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. If he reads the accounts of what I have said in Ottawa or in any other place where the Press has asked me questions, or in this House—indeed, if he asks any Commonwealth Head of Government what the Prime Ministers were told in Singapore


—he will get exactly the same answer—which is, as I explained to them, first, that these are legal obligations on the British Government, which have been set out by the Attorney-General in his advice to Parliament and which the Government have long been aware of; and, secondly, that there are reasons of general British policy, common sense and straightforward dealing why we should fulfil those obligations. When the Government think it appropriate to make a statement, we will do so.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I not only read what the right hon. Gentleman said but heard his voice saying it on the B.B.C. Is the Prime Minister aware that what he said then is very different from what the Law Officers have stated in their White Paper? If he wants to shuffle off the question about when he is going to make a statement, will he at any rate give an assurance that no arms will be supplied beyond those covered in the list—whether we agree with it or not—contained in the Attorney-General's White Paper?

The Prime Minister: I shall give no such assurance. The Government will make the statement when they think it appropriate and not at the request of the Leader of the Opposition.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)

Mr. Barnett: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 19th January in London on economic policies represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Barnett: Does it remain Government policy to beat inflation by concentrating on the public sector wage section rather than doing anything at all about economic growth and full employment? Is it intended to continue this policy through courts of inquiry, or is the present one intended to be the last?

The Prime Minister: The speech by my right hon. Friend to which the hon. Gentleman refers was concerned almost entirely with monetary policy and its effects and its use as one of the economic weapons. My right hon. Friend dealt

in some detail with the way in which he proposes to use it. It is only one of the economic weapons we propose to make use of.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is his view that increasing unemployment, arising because of the failure of Rolls-Royce and other causes, is looked to as a curb to inflation or whether The Times political correspondent who attributed these views to senior Ministers this morning was misinformed?

The Prime Minister: Any redundancies which follow from the Rolls-Royce situation are the consequence of that firm's failure and insolvency, not of Government policy.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman please for once answer the question? Is it his view, as The Times this morning said it was the view of senior Ministers, that increasing unemployment due to this and other causes will help to contain inflation, or is it not his view?

The Prime Minister: It is not the policy of the Government to bring about unemployment for that purpose. These redundancies are here as a result of an industrial failure.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: rose

Several Hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Roy Jenkins.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether it is acceptable to you, but I feel that it is not acceptable to the House that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) should have three supplementary questions when there has been none from this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, but I think that these are very much matters of self-discipline. I have encouraged, or tried to encourage, both Front Benches and back benches to discipline themselves.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: As you were good enough to call me, Mr. Speaker, which you would not have done had you not thought it right, may I ask the Prime Minister, if not "for that purpose", to use his own words, to what purpose


are the Government allowing unemployment to rise?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make the point that excessive wage increases of an inflationary nature, which he released himself and is now supporting, result in increased costs which price firms out of the market and lead to unemployment, he is absolutely right, and perhaps he will advise his hon. Friends behind him and the trade unions to learn the lesson.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY COUNTRIES (VISITS)

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now seek to pay official visits to the capitals of the six member countries of the European Economic Community.

The Prime Minister: I hope to visit Bonn on the 22nd and 23rd March, but I have no specific plans for other visits.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: rose

Hon. Members: Take him with you.

Mr. Speaker: Order. These noises waste time.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am always prepared to travel in good company. In view of the need to evoke a general political will in Europe if the present negotiations to enlarge the E.E.C. are to succeed, and since my right hon. Friend is liberally endowed with that quality—enough for six, if not for ten—will he reconsider this decision? [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] If it is too long, it is due to barracking by hon. Members opposite. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision and enlarge his visit to include the other capitals?

The Prime Minister: I should make it plain to my hon. Friend that I have not reached any decision about visits to the other capitals. The only firm commitment at this moment is to go to Bonn at the end of March. I do not exclude visits to the other capitals after that.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRIXTON (VISIT)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Brixton.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to make an official visit, Sir.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will bring very cold comfort to the rapidly diminishing number of Tory supporters in the Brixton division? Is he further aware that, in view of the Government's dismal record of continual failure, some of my constituents are beginning to press for Brixton to secede from the Commonwealth?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to give me evidence of that. I know that there are particular problems in Brixton, which are being looked after by my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Harold Wilson: On a point of order. In the second of the points of order put from the opposite side of the House during Questions—a practice which the Chair in recent years has tried to have postponed until after 3.30—the question was raised about Front Bench questions. In the light of that and in the light of your reply, whether it was an official Ruling I was not clear, would you arrange for account to be made of the number of questions put from this Bench on various occasions between 1964 and 1970 when, for example, the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, sometimes got up four or five times during questions, together with other of his right hon. Friends? Would you give an assurance that there will be no change in the practice of the House now that there has been a change of Government?

Mr. Speaker: In answer to that point of order, I can say that I have spent a certain amount of time studying the records and they are not at all conclusive.

LAOS

Mr. Hattersley: Mr. Hattersley (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in view of the now confirmed reports of extensive fighting in Laos consequent upon the operation mounted by the army of South


Vietnam, he will make a statement on the action taken by Her Majesty's Government as co-Chairman of the 1962 Geneva Agreement on Laos.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I told the House on 3rd February that I was willing at any time to join with the Soviet co-Chairman to reconvene the Geneva Conference in order to try to deal with this matter. I repeated this to the Soviet Ambassador on the following day.
The action which has now been taken by South Vietnamese forces in Laos is a direct consequence of the flagrant violation of Laotian neutrality by North Vietnamese troops which has been going on for years. When those troops proceed to kill South Vietnamese, the reaction of that country is fully understandable.

Mr. Hattersley: While thanking the Foreign Secretary for that unequivocal statement of Government support for what is happening in Laos, may I ask three questions? This side of the House, welcomes, of course, the renewed conversations with the Soviet Foreign Minister, but bearing in mind developments over the last two days, may we ask whether he will yet again make a specific approach offering our good offices to act within the terms of the 1962 Convention and, if he thinks that a specific approach is inappropriate, will he tell the House why?
Secondly, can he tell the House whether the Government of Laos have officially made any approach to Her Majesty's Government in their capacity as a co-Chairman? Thirdly, bearing in mind recent reports of the new relationship which has developed between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States, may we be told if that new rapport resulted in this country being consulted before the United States took that action?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: In relation to the original remark of the hon. Gentleman, I would refer him to a reply to a somewhat similar question given by the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) in the last Parliament. He said:
… a simple condemnation of the action of the United States, and of the United States

alone, could not be justified either in common sense or as a useful contribution to peacemaking in this area".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1970; Vol. 801, c. 218.]
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not departing from that point of view. I made a specific approach to the Soviet Ambassador five days ago and I do not propose to repeat this every five days. It is open to Mr. Gromyko to answer at any time and to reinstate the machinery of the Geneva Conference. The answer to the second question is that the Laotian Government have not made an approach to Her Majesty's Government. On the third question, Her Majesty's Government were not consulted by the United States Government. We were informed that no United States troops were taking part in this operation. I have constantly stated that the only status the United Kingdom has in this matter is as co-Chairman of the Conference which we hoped would bring peace if it was recalled.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does my right hon. Friend recall any Private Notice Question or any request from the party opposite for special action by the Geneva co-Chairmen when a Communist offensive has been mounted?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am afraid that condemnation of the North Vietnamese for the violation of the neutrality of Laos has been singularly lacking from any quarter.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Foreign Secretary's reply imply that he thinks that the Secretary-General of the United Nations is talking nonsense when he calls the American action deplorable?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think everyone deplores the extension of this war, but it would have been rather better if the condemnation of the North Vietnamese Government had been made from the start.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had not carefully considered what he said; he said that there had been no condemnation from any quarter about North Vietnam infiltration into Laos and other Communist attacks in Laos. I will not press him for an answer now, but would he look up the private record of our relations with the


Governments concerned and also statements made in this House? He will find that he is totally wrong. In this respect he is being less than fair to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham and other members of the late Government.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I would certainly not wish to be unfair to the right hon. Member for Fulham. He took a most courageous line in this matter all the way through—in sharp contra-distinction to some hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Sir F. Bennett: Further to the last two or three questions, is it not a fact that the Laotian Government in their representations about what has been going on have openly placed the primary responsibility on North Vietnamese penetration of their country? Further, is it not a fact that so far as hearing about Private Notice Questions from hon. Members opposite goes, we did not hear any mention at all of North Vietnamese penetration?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is true that the Laotian Government have placed the primary responsibility on North Vietnam, although they, like everyone else, deplore the extension of this war. I would have thought that the whole House would agree that the constructive thing to do now is to try to reinstate the Geneva machinery so that we can get the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Cambodia, South Vietnam and Laos.

Mr. Crawshaw: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the flooding over of this war into that part of South-East Asia has always been a real possibility, irrespective of whether American troops were there? Is it not equally important for us to try to realise that if there is further extension of the war into Thailand our own forces might be involved? Would the right hon. Gentleman say at what stage, if it did go into Thailand, our troops would be required?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This is a separate matter and matters concerning Thailand are for the S.E.A.T.O. Treaty. We have no obligation in respect of South Vietnam and we have made it clear that we are not involved in this war. The practical thing is for the Soviet Foreign Minister now to respond to my appeal to set up the Geneva Peace Conference.

Mr. Tapsell: Has not the change in the nature of the struggle in the area since 1954 made the co-Chairmanship machinery somewhat outdated, and might we not make more progress if we approached the Soviet Union with a view to associating some of the non-aligned Asian Powers with the discussions?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This may well be so. I am ready at any time to consult the Soviet Foreign Minister as to whether any variation of the Geneva machinery is desirable, and I am also ready to consult with the Chinese. The great advantage of the Geneva machinery is that it is there, it was kept in being for this purpose and could be resurrected quite quickly.

Mr. John Mendelson: Will not the Foreign Secretary accept that when the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia hon. Members on this side of the House were the first to protest, and the Government then in office immediately arranged for the recall of Parliament and a debate. Has the Foreign Secretary seen the statement of the Prime Minister of Laos, Souvanna Phouma, protesting against the invasion, and will he not join the Secretary-General of the United Nations in condemning this extension of the war and make representations in Washington requesting the United States to withdraw all their forces and not to expand this war?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Question is about Laos and not about Czechoslovakia. The hon. Gentleman might perhaps recognise that the action of the North Vietnamese in mobilising an attack through neutral Laotian territory is likely to prevent and not accelerate American withdrawal.

Mr. Harold Wilson: What we really want to hear from the Foreign Secretary, instead of a general statement on the situation, is some filling out of what he said just now about possible changes in the Geneva machinery. Does he recall that in 1963, I think, when he was previously Foreign Secretary and there was further trouble in Laos after the 1962 Conference, he put forward the proposal that instead of calling the full Geneva Conference there should be a conference between the parties, the co-Chairmen


and the members of the Control Commission. This idea was unfortunately not then accepted. Since the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the last thing he can ever expect is that the Soviet Government will want a full-dress Geneva Conference with the Chinese present—he must realise that—will he give consideration to the proposal put forward by him at that time, and by others later, that there should be a more restricted conference of just the parties, the co-Chairmen and members of the Control Commission?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This might be possible, although the Russians have shown no sign of reactivating or wishing to reactivate the Control Commission. It would be fair to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that unless the Chinese are present at a conference there would be very little chance of peace.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your help and guidance? I do not know when my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General last answered Oral Questions in this House, but, through no fault of his own, he has not done so on at least the last two occasions when he was due to answer Questions and when it was reasonable, having regard to the point on the Order Paper at which the Questions appeared, that he might be expected to answer. The essential point about the order of Questions is that every Minister should answer Oral Questions at regular intervals, but this has not happened with the Attorney-General. You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that back benchers on both sides of the House are not parties to the arrangements entered into through the usual channels, and I therefore ask you what protection you may be able to offer and what advice you can give in a situation which is becoming increasingly unhappy for many hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair is very much in the hands of the House in this matter. I tried to bustle things along yesterday, and we got through 41 Questions. Today we were getting along fairly well, and then things did not go quite so quickly and we only got through about 27 Questions.
The old tradition was that Questions should be put in order to gain information. The modern tendency is that Questions are put in order to make political points, which was not the original idea of Questions.
This is not a matter for the Chair but for the House, and the Chair is very much in the hands of the House. All I can do is to try to hurry things along, which I promise to do. If the House wishes to change its rules of order, it must do so.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to that point of order. Of course the Government are prepared to look at the order of Questions and the rota, which starts again after the Easter Recess, to see that all Ministers answer Questions, which is certainly our desire. All Governments have great difficulty in satisfying all requirements in working out the Question roster, but in conjunction with the Opposition and all hon. Members of the House we will try our best to do so.

Mr. Douglas: Further to that point of order. In view of your stricture, Mr. Speaker, that Questions should be put down to elicit information, may I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that the reply from the Minister is often that the information cannot be given because it would be embarrassing to the Government?

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Further to that point of order. Is it not obvious that this complaint and similar complaints which have been made in the recent past stem from the practice of giving subsidiary Ministers a lower place on the Order Paper? Would it not be better to revert to the practice of simply taking the Minister as he comes to the top of the list and starting, say, once every five weeks with the Attorney-General or another Minister?

Mr. Whitelaw: It is possible, but the House would find grave disadvantages in that course in relation to those Ministers whom the House wishes to question most. I am in the hands of the House, and I will consider that, but I hope the House will realise the difficulty of following that course.

Mr. Mackie: Further to that point of order. I hope the House will take note that out of 82 Questions today the Minister of Agriculture answered 21.

Mrs. Reneé Short: Instead of reorganising the rota of Questions to Ministers, will the Leader of the House say whether there is any chance of additional time being allowed for Questions, as this would be the real solution to the problem?

Mr. Speaker: Several points have been made on this matter. The hon. Member said that the Minister of Agriculture had only answered 21 Questions but I saw a number of disappointed faces when hon. Members were not called to ask supplementary questions. We have to get along as quickly as we can. This is not a proper matter for discussion now. It is a serious matter but not a new one. For 25 years there have been constant complaints about not getting through enough Questions. I hope the proper channels and those in authority will have regard to the points which have been made.

Mr. Mackie: Further to that point of order. Do not supplementary questions arise because of the unsatisfactory nature of the first answer?

Mr. Speaker: That is the view of every Opposition with regard to every Government. There is nothing new in it.

BILLS PRESENTED

SALE OF TICKETS (OFFENCES)

Mr. Denis Howell, supported by Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Charles Morrison, Mr. Burden, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. William Price, Mr. Roland Moyle, Mr. John Farr, Mr. Richard Body, Mr. Eric Heller and Mr. Lawrie Pavitt, presented a Bill to prohibit in certain circumstances the sale or resale of any ticket for entry or admission to any sporting event or entertainment; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 108.]

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke, supported by Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby and Mr. James A. Dunn, presented a Bill to amend the law with respect to the carriage of goods by sea: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12th March, and to be printed. [Bill 106.]

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION

Mrs. Joyce Butler, supported by Mr. Edward Bishop, Mrs. Freda Corbet, Mrs. Lena Jeger, Mr. Charles Pannell, Miss Quennell, Dr. Shirley Summerskill, and Dame Joan Vickers, presented a Bill to make illegal, and provide for the prevention of, discrimination against women; to establish an anti-discrimination board; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 7th May, and to be printed. [Bill 107.]

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

[FIFTH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 2nd February].

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 37

ACTION BY COMMISSION FOR PROMOTING SETTLEMENT OF QUESTION REFERRED UNDER S. 35

Amendment No. 684 proposed [2nd February]: in page 27, line 31, to leave out from the word 'provisions' to the end of the subsection.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 254. Noes 290.

Division No. 127.]
AYES
[3.50 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Allen, Scholefield
Driberg, Tom
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Judd, Frank


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunn, James A.
Kaufman, Gerald


Ashley, Jack
Dunnett, Jack
Kelley, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Eddie, Alex
Kinnock, Neil


Atkinson, Norman
Edelman, Maurice
Lambie, David


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lamond, James


Barnes, Michael
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Latham, Arthur


Barnett, Joel
Ellis, Tom
Lawson, George


Beaney, Alan
English, Michael
Leadbitter, Ted


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, Fred
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fernyhough, E.
Leonard, Dick


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Lester, Miss Joan


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)


Booth, Albert
Fletcher, Raymond (Iikeston)
Lewis, Rots (Carlisle)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lipton, Marcus


Bradley, Tom
Foley, Maurice
Lomas, Kenneth


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Foot Michael
Loughlin, Charles


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Proven)
Ford, Ben
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Ford, Ben
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Buchan, Norman
Forrester, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McBride, Neil


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Galpern, Sir Myer
McCartney, Hugh


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Garrett, W. E.
McElhone, Frank


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Gilbert, Dr. John
McGuire, Michael


Cant, R. B.
Ginsburg, David
Mackenzie, Gregor


Carmichael, Neil
Golding, John
Mackie, John


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Gordon Walker, Fit. Hn. P. C.
Macktintosh, John P.


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Cohen, Stanley
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mallalieu J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Coleman, Donald
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Marks, Kenneth


Concannon, J. D.
Hardy, Peter
Marquand, David


Conian, Bernard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hart, Ft. Hn. Judith
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hattersley, Roy
Mayhew, Christopher


Crawshaw, Richard
Heffer, Eric S.
Meacher, Michael


Cronin, John
Hilton, W. S.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Horam, John
Mendelson, John


Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mikardo, Ian


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Millan, Bruce


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Huckfield, Leslie
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Molloy, William


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hunter, Adam
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Moyle, Roland


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Jay, Rt. His. Douglas
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Murray, Ronald King


Deakins, Eric
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ogden, Eric


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
O'Halloran, Michael


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
John, Brynmor
O'Malley, Brian


Dempsey, James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oram, Bert


Doig, Peter
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Orbach, Maurice


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Orme, Stanley




Oswald, Thomas
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Palmer, Arthur
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Tinn, James


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Short,Rt. Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Tomney, Frank


Pardoe, John
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Torney, Tom


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Tuck, Raphael


Pavitt, Laurie
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Urwin, T. W.


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Sillars, James
Varley, Eric G.


Pendry, Tom
Silverman, Julius
Wainwright, Edwin


Perry, Ernest C.
Skinner, Dennis
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Small, William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Prescott, John
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Wallace, George


Price, William (Rugby)
Spearing, Nigel
Watkins, David


Probert, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
Weitzman, David


Rankin, John
Stallard, A. W.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Steel, David
Whitlock, William


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Richard, Ivor
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Strang, Gavin
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Strauss, Rt, Hn. G. R.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Swain, Thomas



Roper, John
Taverne, Dick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rose, Paul B.
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)
Mr. James Hamilton and




Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cormack, Patrick
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Aliason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Costain, A. P.
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Critchley, Julian
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Astor, John
Crouch, David
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Atkins, Humphrey
Curran, Charles
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Awdry, Daniel
Dalkeith, Earl of
Haselhurst, Alan


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hastings, Stephen


Balniel, Lord
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Havers, Michael


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Hayhoe, Barney


Batsford Brian
Dean, Paul
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dighy, Simon Wingfield
Heseltine, Michael


Bell, Ronald
Dixon, Piers
Hicks, Robert


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Higgins, Terence L.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Douglas-Home, Pt. Hn. Sir Aloc
Hiley, Joseph


Benyon, W.
Drayson, G. B.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dykes, Hugh
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Biffen, John
Eden, Sir John
Holland, Philip


Biggs-Davison, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Holt, Miss Mary


Blaker, Peter
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hordern, Peter


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hornby, Richard


Boscawen, Robert
Emery, Peter
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.DamePatricia


Bossom, Sir Clive
Eyre, Reginald
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Bowden, Andrew
Farr, John
Howell, David (Guildford)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Fell, Anthony
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Braine, Bernard
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hunt, John


Bray, Ronald
Fidler, Michael
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Brewis, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Iremonger, T. L.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
James, 'David


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jessel, Toby


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Jopling, Michael


Bryan, Paul
Foster, Sir John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Fowler, Norman
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Buck, Antony
Fox, Marcus
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fry, Peter
Kershaw, Anthony


Burden, F. A
Gardner, Edward
Kilfedder, James


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gibson-Watt, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Campbell, Rt.Hn,G.(Meray&amp;Nairn)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Carlisle, Mark
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kinsey, J. R.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Kirk, Peter


Cary, Sir Robert
Goodhart, Philip
Kitson, Timothy


Channon, Paul
Goodhew, Victor
Knox, David


Chapman, Sydney
Gorst, John
Lambton, Antony


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Cower, Raymond
Lane, David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Churchill, W. S.
Gray, Hamish
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Green, Alan
Le Marchant, Spencer


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Clegg, Walter
Grylls, Michael
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)


Cockeram, Eric
Gummer, Selwyn
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Cooke, Robert
Gurden, Harold
Longden, Gilbert


Coombs, Derek
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Leveridge, John


Cordie, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McAdden, Sir Stephen







MacArthur, Ian
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


McCrindle, R. A,
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


McLaren, Martin
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Stokes, John


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Peel, John
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


McMaster, Stanley
Percival, Ian
Sutcliffe, John


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Tapsell, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Pounder, Rafton
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Maddan, Martin
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Made), David
Price, David (Eastfeigh)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Maginnis, John E.
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Tebbit, Norman


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Marten, Neil
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Mather, Carol
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Maude, Angus
Raison, Timothy
Tilney, John


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Mawby, Ray
Redmond, Robert
Trew, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rees, Peter (Dover)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Vickers, Dame Joan


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Ridley, Ho. Nicholas
Waddington, David


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ridsdale, Julian
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Moate, Roger
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Walks, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Molyneaux, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Money, Ernie D.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wall, Patrick


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Rost, Peter
Walters, Dennis


Morro, Hector
Royle, Anthony
Ward, Dame Irene


Montgomery, Fergus
Russell, Sir Ronald
Warren, Kenneth


More, Jasper
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Weatherill, Bernard


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Sandys, Rt. Hn, D.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Scott, Nicholas
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Mudd, David
Scott-Hopkins, James
Whittlaw, Rt. Hn. William


Murton, Oscar
Sharples, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wilkinson, John


Heave, Airey
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Simeons, Charles
Woodnutt, Mark


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.
Worsiey, Marcus


Normanton, Tom
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Nott, John
Soref, Harold
Younger, Hn. George


Onslow, Cranley
Speed, Keith



Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Spence, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Sproat, Iain
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Osborn, John
Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Tim Fortescue.


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 294, Noes 258.

Division No. 128.]
AYES
[4.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Dean, Paul


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Buck, Antony
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Dixon, Piers


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Burden, F. A.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Astor, John
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Atkins, Humphrey
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Drayson, G. B.


Awdry, Daniel
Carlisle, Mark
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Eden, Sir John


Balniel, Lord
Cary, Sir Robert
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Channon, Paul
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Batsford, Brian
Chapman, Sydney
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Eyre, Reginald


Bell, Ronald
Chichester-Clark, R.
Farr, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Churchill, W. S.
Fell, Anthony


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Benyon, W.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fidler, Michael


Bitten, John
Clegg, Walter
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Biggs-Davison, John
Cockeram, Eric
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Blaker, Peter
Cooke, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Coombs, Derek
Fookes, Miss Janet


Boscawen, Robert
Cooper, A. E.
Foster, Sir John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Cordie, John
Fowler, Norman


Bowden, Andrew
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Fox, Marcus


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cormack, Patrick
Fry, Peter


Brain, Bernard
Costain, A. P.
Gardrer, Edward


Bray, Ronald
Critchley, Julian
Gibson-Watt, David


Brewis, John
Crouch, David
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Brinton, Sir Tattoo
Curran, Charles
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Brockiehank-Fowler,
Christopher
Dalkeith, Earl of Glyn, Dr. Alan


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Goodhart, Philip


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Goodhew, Victor


Bryan, Paul
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Gorst, John




Gower, Raymond
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McMaster, Stanley
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Gray, Hamish
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Rost, Peter


Green, Alan
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Royle, Anthony


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Grylls, Michael
Maddan, Martin
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Gummer, Selwyn
Madel, David
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Gurden, Harold
Maginnis, John E.
Scott, Nicholas


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marten, Neil
Sharples, Richard


Halt-Davis, A. G. F.
Mather, Carol
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maude, Angus
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Simeons, Charles


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mawby, Ray
Skeet, T. H. H.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Soref, Harold


Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Speed, Keith


Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Spence, John


Havers, Michael
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Sproat, Iain


Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stainton, Keith


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Moate, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor


Heseltine, Michael
Molyneaux, James
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Hicks, Robert
Money, Ernie
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Higgins, Terence L.
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hiley, Joseph
Monro, Hector
Stokes, John


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
More, Jasper
Sutcliffe, John


Holland, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Tapsell, Peter


Holt, Miss Mary
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hardern, Peter
Mudd, David
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Hornby, Richard
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Heave, Airey
Tebbit, Norman


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Temple, John M.


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Hunt, John
Normanton, Tom
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nott, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Onslow, Cranley
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


James, David
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Tilney, John


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Jessel, Toby
Osborn, John
Trew, Peter


Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinstead)
Owen, Idris (Stockport. N.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Jopling, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Peel, John
Waddington, David


Kershaw, Anthony
Percival, Ian
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


Kilfedder, James




King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wall, Patrick


Kinsey, J. R.
Pink, R. Bonner
Walters, Dennis


Kirk, Peter
Pounder, Rafton
Ward, Dame Irene


Kitson, Timothy
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Warren, Kenneth


Knox, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Weatherill, Bernard


Lambton, Antony
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lana, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wiggin, Jerry


Le Marchant, Spencer
Raison, Timothy
Wilkinson, John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoftrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Redmond, Robert
Woodnutt, Mark


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Worsley, Marcus


Longden, Gilbert
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Loveridge, John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Younger, Hn. George


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon



MacArthur, Ian
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McCrindle, R. A.
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


McLaren, Martin
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Mr. Tim Fortescue.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshlre, W.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cant, R. B.


Allen, Scholefield
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Carmichael, Neil


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Booth, Albert
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)


Armstrong, Ernest
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)



Ashley, Jack
Bradley, Tom
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Cohen, Stanley


Barnes, Michael
Buchan, Norman
Coleman, Donald


Barnett, Joel
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Concannon, J. D.


Beaney, Alan
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Conlan, Bernard


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Corbet, Mrs. Freda







Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jenkins, Rt, Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pendry, Tom


Crawshaw, Richard
John, Brynmor
Pentland, Norman


Cronin, John
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Prescott, John


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Probert, Arthur


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rankin, John


Davidson, Arthur
Judd, Frank
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kelley, Richard
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kinnock, Neil
Richard, Ivor


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lambie, David
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lamond, James
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Deakins, Eric
Latham, Arthur
Robertson, John (Paisley)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lawson, George
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dempsey, James
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rober, John


Doig, Peter
Leonard, Dick
Rose, Paul B.


Dormand, J. D.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Driberg, Tom
Lipton, Marcus
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lomas, Kenneth
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Dunn, James A.
Loughlin, Charles
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dunnett, Jack
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Sillars, James


Edelman, Maurice
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silverman, Julius


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McBride, Neil
Skinner, Dennis


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McCartney, Hugh
Small, William


Ellis, Tom
McElhone, Frank
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


English, Michael
McGuire, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Evans, Fred
Mackenzie, Gregor
Spriggs, Leslie


Fernyhough, E.
Mackie, John
Stallard, A. W.


Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Mackintosh, John P.
Steel, David


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Stewart, David (Swindon


Foley, Maurice
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Foot, Michael
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Strang, Gavin


Ford, Ben
Marks, Kenneth
Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R.


Forrester, J, John
Marsh, Rt. David
Summerskill, Hn. Sir Dr. Shirley


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Swain, Thomas


Calpern, Sir Myer
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Taverne, Dick


Garrett, W. E.
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomson, Rt. Hn. C. (Dundee, E.)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Meacher, Michael
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Golding, John
Mellish, Rt Hn. Robert
Tinn, James


Gorden Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mendelson, John
Tomney, Frank


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mikardo, Ian
Torney, Tom


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Millen, Bruce
Tuck. Raphael


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Urwin, T. W.


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Varle, Eric G.


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Molloy, William
Wainwright, Edwin


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wallace, George


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Moyle, Roland
Watkins, David


Hattersley, Roy
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Weiteman, David


Heifer, Eric S.
Murray, Ronald King
Wellbeloved, James


Hilton, W. S.
Ogden, Eric
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Horam, John
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitlock, William


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian
Willey, Rt. Hn, Frederick


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oram, Bert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Huckfield, Leslie
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orme, Stanley
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hunter, Adam
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles



Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Pardoe, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'Cras,S.)
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMISSION ON REFERENCE UNDER S. 35

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 299, Noes 260.

Division No. 129.]
AYES
[4.12 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Alison, Mihael (Barkston Ash)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kinsey, J. R.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kirk, Peter


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Emery, Peter
Kitson, Timothy


Astor, John
Eyre, Reginald
Knox, David


Atkins, Humphrey
Farr, John
Lambton, Antony


Awdry, Daniel
Fell, Anthony
Lane, David


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fidler, Michael
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Balniel, Lord
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Botsford, Brian
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Bell, Ronald
Foster, Sir John
Longden, Gilbert


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fowler, Norman
Loveridge, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fox, Marcus
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Benyon, W.
Fry, Peter
MacArthur, Ian


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gardner, Edward
McCrindle, R. A.


Biffen, John
Gibson-Watt, David
McLaren, Martin


Biggs-Davison, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Blaker, Peter
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McMaster, Stanley


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Boscawen, Robert
Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Bossom, Sir Clive
Goodhew, Victor
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Bowden, Andrew
Gorst, John
Maddan, Martin



Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn.
John Gower, Raymond
Mader, David


Braine, Bernard
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maginnis, John E.


Bray, Ronald
Gray, Hamish
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Brewis, John
Green, Alan
Marten, Neil


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mather, Carol


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Grylls, Michael
Maude, Angus


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gummer, Selwyn
Maudling, Rt. Her. Reginald


Bruce,Gardyne, J.
Gurden, Harold
Mawby, Ray


Bryan, Paul
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Buck, Antony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Burden, F. A.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W.)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Moate, Roger


Carlisle, Mark
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Molyneaux, James


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Haselhurst, Alan
Money, Ernie


Cary, Sir Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Channon, Paul
Havers, Michael
Monro, Hector


Chapman, Sydney
Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
More, Jasper


Chichester-Clark,
Heseltine, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Churchill, W. S.
Hicks, Robert
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Clark William (Surrey, E.)
Higgins, Terence L.
Mudd, David


Carke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hiley, Joseph
Murton, Oscar


Clegg, Walter
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Cockeram, Eric
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Neave, Alrey


Cooke, Robert
Holland, Philip
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Coombs, Derek
Holt, Miss Mary
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Cooper, A. E.
Hordern, Peter
Normanton, Tom


Cordle, John
Hornby, Richard
Noot, John


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Onslow, Cranley


Cormack, Patrick
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Costain, A. P.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Osborn, John


Critchley, Julian
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Crouch, David
Hunt, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Curran, Charles
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Iremonger, T. L.
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
James, David
Peel, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Percival Ian


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen, Jack
Jessel, Toby
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Dean, Paul
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jopling, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Dixon, Piers
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pounder, Rafton


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Drayson, G. B.
Kershaw, Anthony
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Dykes, Hugh
Kilfedder, James
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Eden, Sir, John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis




Quennell, Miss J. M.
Soref, Harold
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Raison, Timothy
Speed, Keith
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Spence, John
Vickers, Dame Joan


Redmond, Robert
Sproat, Iain
Waddington, David


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Stainton, Keith
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Wall, Patrick


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Walters, Dennis


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stokes, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Ridsdale, Julian
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Warren, Kenneth


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Sutcliffe, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Rogerts, Wyn (Conway)
Tapsell, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Rost, Peter
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Royle, Anthony
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wiggin, Jerry


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Wilkinson, John


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tebbit, Norman
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Temple, John M.
Woodnutt, Mark


Scott, Nicholas
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Worsley, Marcus


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Sharpies, Richard
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Younger, Hn. George


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)



Shelton, Wiliam (Clapham)
Tilney, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Simeons, Charles
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Mr.Paul Hawkins and


Skeet, T.H.H.
Trew, Peter
Mr.Tim Fortesuce.


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Tugendhat, Christopher





NOES


Abse, Leo
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Huckfield, Leslie


Albu, Austen
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Allen Sholefield
Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Arher, Peter (Rowley Regis)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hunter, Adam


Ashley, Jack
Dempsey, James
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)


Ashton, Joe
Doig, Peter
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Atkinson, Norman
Dormand, J. D.
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'h'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Barnes, Michael
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jenkins, Rt. Hrt. Roy (Stechford)


Barnett, Joel
Driherg, Tom
John, Brynmor


Beaney, Alan
Duffy, A. E. P.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dunn, James A.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Bishop, E. S.
Eadie, Alex
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Edelman, Maurice
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Cwynoro (Carmarthen)


Booth, Albert
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Ellis, Tom
Judd, Frank


Bradley, Tom
English, Michael
Kaufman, Gerald


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Evans, Fred
Kelley, Richard


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Proven)
Fernyhough, E.
Kinnock, Neil


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Lambie, David


Buchan, Norman
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lamond, James


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Latham, Arthur


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lawson, George


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Foley, Maurice
Leadbitter, Ted


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Foot, Michael
Lee, Rt. Fin. Frederick


Cant, R. B.
Ford, Ben
Leonard, Dick


Carmichael, Neil
Forrester, John
Lestor, Miss Joan


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Garrett, W. E.
Lipton, Marcus


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lomas, Kenneth


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Ginsburg, David
Loughlin, Charles


Cohen, Stanley
Golding, John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Coleman, Donald
Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Concannon, J. D.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Conlan, Bernard
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McBride, Neil


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McCartney, Hugh


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McElhone, Frank


Crawshaw, Richard
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McGuire, Michael


Cronin, John
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hardy, Peter
Mackie, John


Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackintosh, John P.


Cunningham, C. (Islington, S.W.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hattersley, Roy
McNamara, J. Kevin


Dalyelf, Tam
Heffer, Eric S.
MacPherson, Malcolm


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hilton, W. S.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Davidson, Arthur
Horam, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marks, Kenneth


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Marquand, David







Marsh, Rt. Hn, Richard
Prescott, John
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Strang, Gavin


Mayhew, Christopher
Price, William (Rugby)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Meacher, Michael
Probert, Arthur
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rankin, John
Swain, Thomas


Mendelson, John
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Taverne, Dick


Mikardo, Ian
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Millan, Bruce
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Richard, Ifor
Tinn, James


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tomney, Frank


Molloy, William
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Torney, Tom


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tuck, Raphael


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Urwin, T. W.


Morris, Charles R. (Opensaw)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Varley, Eric G.


Moyle, Roland
Roper, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rose, Paul B.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Murray, Ronald King
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ogden, Eric
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wallace, George


O'Halloran, Michael
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Watkins, David


O'Malley, Brian
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Weitzman, David


Oram, Bert
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Wellbeloved, James


Orbach, Maurice
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Orme, Stanley
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
White, Jams (Glasgow, Pollok)


Oswald, Thomas
Sillars, James
Whitlock, William


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Silverman, Julius
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Palmer, Arthur
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Small, William
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Pardoe, John
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Pavitt, Laurie
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Stallard, A. W.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Pendry, Tom
Steel, David



Pentland, Norman
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Perry, Ernest G.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Mr. James Hamilton.

Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39

ORDER OF INDUSTRIAL COURT ON REPORT UNDER S. 38

The Chairman: We come now to Amendment No. 198, in page 28, line 24, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.

Mr. Peter Archer: This Amendment, too, is destined to fall a victim to the guillotine. Like Danton, it deserved a better fate, but I suspect that it shares its tumbrel with many even worthier arguments. A new abbreviation has entered the parliamentary vocabulary: "U.P.N.M." — "under protest, not moved". Under protest, I refrain from moving this Amendment.
Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester, Blackley): We have discussed at some length the principles and the proposals which are consummated in the Clause and which we on this side of the Committee have described throughout as the fictitious agreement Clause; because what

is proposed by means of this very tortuous procedure through Clauses 35–38 is that in the last analysis two parties are compelled to enter into a binding agreement against the clear intention of one of them. It must be the clear intention, otherwise there would be no need to go through this procedure and obtain an order of the court. In the event of the default of one of the parties, a substantial amount of compensation may fall to be paid.
Because this is so plainly an outrageous intrusion into the principle of freedom of contract and an entirely novel post-election proposal, it is now at the eleventh hour being sold by the Secretary of State as an emergency procedure. This is what we have been told. That may well be the Secretary of State's intention; but if it was, why was this not included in that part of the Bill which is headed "Emergency Procedures" instead of it finding its way into this Part of the Bill?
There is no guarantee, even if we are assured by the Secretary of State that it is intended to be used only in emergency, that once it is on the Statute Book that is how it will be used. In any event, it does not alter the principle to which this side of the Committee is entirely opposed and it does not detract from the


points which have been made in the debates on the other Clauses—that there will be a duty upon trade unionists and others who do not wish to enter into one of these fictitious agreements to police it and take quite drastic action against their own colleagues and members to enforce it.
The interaction of C.I.R. and N.I.R.C. here is such that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) in a very telling speech pointed out, the whole intention of the C.I.R. will be undermined. This has been shown, not merely by the action of Alf Allen and Will Paynter, but by the action only a day or two ago of a very eminent professor displaying his contempt for the C.I.R. in the new context of the N.I.R.C. One wonders just how long it will be before this is followed by other resignations on the part of those serving on the C.I.R.
Also, as an appeal lies only on a question of law, it will not be possible to appeal from a decision of N.I.R.C.; because these are purely factual matters in these agreements.
Above all, we on this side have emphasised throughout the continuous and the changing nature of procedure agreements and the fact that they rely ultimately on voluntary co-operation.
The problem about procedures is not obtaining an agreement. The problem is seeing that an agreement is kept. This point is entirely missed by this Clause and by the preceding Clauses. We are concerned that we should obtain procedures which, when they are obtained, will be kept.
Even when parties voluntarily agree to a procedure, it is virtually impossible to enforce this satisfactorily by law. Heaven knows what will occur when, as in this case, we have to enforce a fictitious agreement upon an unwilling, non-consenting party.
It is not good enough for the Solicitor-General, as he did in last week's debate, to throw the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act at us as a precedent. That Act is not enforced in this way by a union policing its own members. It operates so as to bring the terms and conditions in an industry up to those which are voluntarily agreed by the

majority in that industry. It does not single out, as the Bill does, a particular employer for special treatment with regard to a case and problem particular to him. It is socially acceptable to industry, whereas the Clause, as we on this side continually point out, is not socially acceptable; and that which is not socially acceptable will ultimately be unenforceable.
This is an alien concept—an idea perhaps more at home in the realm of the 1930s than in Britain in the 1970s. What the Government should be doing now is encouraging parties voluntarily to move forward to mutually acceptable procedure agreements. The Government should stop taking Donovan out of context in the way the Solicitor-General did. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to read again paragraphs 475 and 507 of the Donovan Report and put Donovan in its context instead of putting odd sentences that appear to support his views.
The secret of harmony in industry is not enforceability but agreement in co-operation, and certainly not the enforcement of things that are not agreed between the two sides of industry.
Finally, we arrive at these conclusions. First, even if procedure agreements are to be enforceable, as they are under the Bill, the Clause still remains utterly repugnant and unacceptable to this side of the Committee. Second, if procedure agreements are not to be enforceable, as they are under the Bill, the Clause still remains utterly repugnant and unacceptable to this side of the Committee. Second, if procedure agreements are not to be enforceable, the Clause would be an irrelevancy, anyway.
Therefore, as this is a most provocative Clause which has caused dismay and bitterness throughout the trade union movement and among a great many academics who are concerned with the law of contract and a great many lawyers, and as it is already contributing in great measure to the upsurge of bitterness on the part of industry provoked by the Government, we on this side will oppose the Clause and will throughout the stages of the Bill oppose any attempt to enforce upon unwilling parties agreements into which they have not entered and which they cannot be expected to enforce against their own members.

4.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The Committee has heard the arguments on this part of the Bill rehearsed in many debates and I do not want to take up time on them now, but I must reply to the general assertion again repeated by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) denouncing the provisions when they are a fair and reasonable attempt to solve what is by common acknowledgment one of the greatest difficulties on the industrial relations scene.
It may be said that these are provocative provisions. The fact is that other people—academics and practical people of all kinds—have urged us to extend the concept of enforceability to pre-existing agreements. They have said that we should disregard the difficulties or practical facts of particular cases and that we should make the provision for enforceability universally applicable. We have not done that. We have proceeded from the premise, as the Donovan Commission pointed out—and there is no room for argument about this—that most of our troubles spring from the inadequacy of procedure agreements and that the urgent need is to improve those agreements. [HON. MEMBERS: "On a voluntary basis."] Hon. Members say, "On a voluntary basis." But society has been waiting for management to get off its backside and for union leaders to improve procedures on a voluntary basis. Society asks, "How long must we wait before these improvements come about on a voluntary basis?"
For that reason, successive Governments have become increasingly impressed with the urgency of trying to do something to accelerate progress towards the making of the kind of agreement which everyone regards as desirable. We are not making a general intrusion into freedom. We are designing selected, precise, case-by-case procedures which will exert pressure upon management and union leaders to improve procedures in given situations.
The rôle of the C.I.R. will be to act as honest broker and conciliator in those cases which the court has identified as causing persistent trouble, as set out in Clause 35. It must be plain beyond argument that some kind of outside guidance, help and treatment is desirable. It is only

in that narrow situation that we arrived at the remedies proposed. It is beside the point and unimpressive for statements to be made about comparisons between these proposals and anything which may be found in Rome, ancient or modern. Society acknowledges that we have a problem. Everyone has acknowledged the necessity to try to raise standards, and this is a method carefully designed to achieve that end. It involves no contempt of the C.I.R., whose rôle will be to do what it can to bring about the necessary improvements.
We believe that the general tide of progress must be voluntary but that the law can and should exert pressure in the direction of selected cases to try to achieve the result that society wants.

Mr. James Sillars: The Solicitor-General keeps telling us about society's opinion. Can he say when society gave an opinion on this matter, seeing that the point at issue was never discussed as a matter of controversy between the main parties at the election?

The Solicitor-General: The general conclusion that unofficial, unconstitutional strikes, either in breach of good procedures or, more frequently, because of the non-existence of good procedures, are at the heart of our troubles was endorsed by the Donovan Commission and by the last Government. This is the diagnosis and society has accepted the efforts of Labour and Conservative Governments to find a solution for it.
The Donovan Report argued that when procedures had been improved we must look again at the case for selective enforceability on a case-by-case basis. We have waited for three years. There is not sufficient evidence that improvement is taking place voluntarily as fast as we should like and I am sure that society supports our attempts to create more quickly machinery for the improvement of agreements and, in these special selected cases, for such agreements to be enforced. I am sure that we all share that objective, and I commend the view that this is a legitimate and reasonably balanced way to try to achieve it.
The parallel with the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act remains. If society wishes to see an improvement in the standard of procedures, it is not unreasonable to select a method of the kind


we suggest, just as in the context of the 1959 Act it was decided that it was sensible to bring the standards of collective bargains up to those generally agreed and, in those circumstances, to impose the conclusion upon selected firms. It is in that way, and not in any extravagant way, that I commend the Clause, already debated in principle, as one which the Committee should accept.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: It is important to point out that Clause 39 does two things. It imposes something upon people who, according to the Donovan Report, would be preferably left to their own devices. There is an element of imposition there, and I think wrongly there, from the beginning. The second element about which we complain is the method of imposition. This is where the paradox is highlighted at its most extreme. The cutting edge of the enforceability of collective agreements is in Clause 39.
The paradox which highlights it is the fact that in Clause 35 there are examples of three kinds of procedure agreement which can lead to imposition by the Industrial Court. The first is when there is no procedure agreement. Whether one agrees with the Government's remedy or not, one can well understand that the diagnosis is probably relevant—that there will be trouble in industry if there is no procedure agreement. Similarly, one can understand the second example—the unsuitability of procedure agreements such as exist. One may acknowledge the diagnosis but not the cure.
But one then comes to the third example which is illustrated in Clause 35(1)(b), namely, a procedure which is in existence, with both parties being satisfied with the agreement. The paradox is that, despite the fact that the parties have reached agreement and have a genuine contract, the Industrial Court can, under Clause 39, impose other terms of agreement upon them. It can not merely impose something on them; it can impose it on the fiction that it is an agreement. One is taking, not one, but two strange new steps and providing for a system of enforceability based on the fiction that the parties are agreed about the thing to be enforceable.
For that reason, among others, I think that the Clause is in error and goes in the wrong direction.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: We all want to make progress on the Bill, but this is one of the points in it at which a vital principle is involved. We cannot stress too strongly how iniquitous we find the principle in the Clause. We are totally at a loss to understand the complacency of hon. Members opposite, and particularly of hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite, because they must know that everyone connected with and experienced in the administration and operation of the law is deeply perturbed by the proposed new principle.
Although, as the Solicitor-General said, we on this side of the Committee have ventilated our anxieties, we have had a completely contemptible answer from the Government. The Solicitor-General even justified the Government breaking their mandate on their industrial relations legislation by the fact that the Government had not done certain things which they had been urged to do. In particular, he said, "Look how liberal we are, because we have been urged to make pre-existing contracts legally enforceable. So all that we are doing is to make not only post-legislation contracts legally enforceable but to impose agreements that were never agreed." It reminds me of the girl who justified her illegitimate baby on the ground that it was not twins. It will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to quote in aid Donovan and the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act. It is vital for us to place on record once and for all that in this, as in other matters, the Government are distorting Donovan and going in exactly the opposite direction to that which Donovan advocated.
The Solicitor-General made great play on that section of Donovan which discusses what might be the rôle that law could play when the voluntary reforms had been carried through. He said that Donovan had quoted the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act as an analogy. Donovan did nothing of the kind. It was not quoting that Act as a justification for imposing procedure agreements here. In paragraph 511, Donovan was merely quoting this as an example of ad hoc application of the


law. But the Donovan attitude is made completely clear in paragraph 514 when, having discussed the sort of legal sanctions which might, if all else failed, be considered, and having discussed the possibility of the Secretary of State giving legal backing to particular procedure agreements, in exceptional situations, Donovan went on to say:
To proceed further, the Secretary of State would, on the basis of this consultation, have to be satisfied: (a) that the disputes procedure has been agreed between the employer and the union or unions concerned;
Even in this ultimate resort, where Donovan considered that it might be necessary at some distant future point, if voluntary reform had failed, to consider bringing in the law, they were only prepared to give legal backing to procedure agreements which had been negotiated by both sides.
Therefore, once again the Government are wrong about Donovan. Once again, the Government are manufacturing a new and illiberal principle entirely of their own.
It is not only lawyers who are outraged by this Clause. It is not only the trade unions who protest and will continue to protest that they are expected, under this group of Clauses, to police agreements which they did not voluntarily enter into—a new form of tyranny in our law—but the ordinary person in this country.

Mr. John Page: Rubbish.

Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman has consoled himself very easily through earlier stages of our debate. I am not surprised that he is consoling himself very easily now.

Mr. Anthony Fell: I was laughing at the fact that the right hon. Lady is saying that the whole country

is against the Bill, and so on. In Yarmouth on Sunday we had a great march to protest against the Bill, which was advertised in the Press and elsewhere, and 45 people turned up.

Mrs. Castle: I cannot answer for Yarmouth, particularly as it returns the hon. Gentleman, which I should have thought was a measure of the need for enlightenment in that area.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are labouring under a very dangerous illusion if they think that there is not intense bitterness against the Bill, which will grow as the full implications of its provisions come home. The Government are coasting along at present by a widespread ignorance of the public as to what the Bill involves.
I quote a letter which I received the other day, a second letter from someone who had written to me violently supporting the Bill and violently criticising what I had written about it. The tenor of the letter was to say how unreasonable I was being about this reasonable Government. Part of it reads as follows:
You of all people must know that the chances of an employer forcing any agreement on a reluctant Trade Union are negligible. The Unions are far too strong for this to be possible. In any event if a Union did not sign an agreement it would not be an agreement so how could a Union be mulcted for damages for breaking something which did not exist.
In this Clause we are deciding that something shall exist which did not exist, and that it will have the full rigour of the law behind it. When that principle comes home to people, their reaction against the Bill and the Government will be still more bitter.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 303, Noes 257.

Division No. 130.]
AYES
[4.47 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Brinton, Sir Tatton


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Benyon, W.
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Biffen, John
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Astor, John
Biggs-Davison, John
Bryan, Paul


Atkins, Humphrey
Blakey, Peter
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)


Awdry, Daniel
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Buck, Antony


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Body, Richard
Bullus, Sir Eric


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Boscawen, Robert
Burden, F. A.


Balniel, Lord
Bossom, Sir Clive
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bowden, Andrew
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)


Batsford, Brian
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Carlisle, Mark


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Braine, Bernard
Carr, Rt Hn. Robert


Bell, Ronald
Bray, Ronald
Cary, Sir Robert


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Brewis, John
Channon, Paul




Chapman, Sydney
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Holland, Philip
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Churchill, W. S.
Holt, Miss Mary
Peel, John


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hornby, Richard
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Clegg, Walter
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cockeram, Eric
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pink, R. Bonner


Cooke, Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pounder, Rafton


Coombs, Derek
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cooper, A. E.
Hunt, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cordle, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Iremonger, T. L.
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cormack, Patrick
James, David
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Critchley, Julian
Jessel, Toby
Raison, Timothy


Crouch, David
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Curran, Charles
Jopling, Michael
Redmond, Robert


Dalkeith, Earl of
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees, Peter (Dover)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Rees-Davies, W. F.


d-Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dean, Paul
Kilfedder, James
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Digby, Simon Wingfield
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridley, Ho. Nicholas


Dixon, Piers
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridsdale, Julian


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kinsey, J. R.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kirk, Peter
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Drayson, G. B.
Kitson, Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Knox, David
Rost, Peter


Dykes, Hug
Lambton, Antony
Royle, Anthony


Eden, Sir John
Lane, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Legge-Bourke Sir Harry
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Scott, Nicholas


Emery, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd,Rt.Hn Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Sharples, Richard


Farr, John
Lloyd Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fell, Anthony
Longden, Gilbert
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Loveridge, John
Simeons, Charles


Fidler, Michael
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Skeet, T. H. H.


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead
MacArthur, Ian
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McCrindle, R. A.
Soref, Harold


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McLaren, Martin
Speed, Keith


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Spence, John


Fortescue, Tim
McMaster, Stanley
Sproat, Iain


Foster, Sir John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stainton, Keith


Fowler, Norman
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Fry, Peter
Maddan, Martin
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Madel, David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Gardner, Edward
Maginnis, John E.
Stokes, John


Gibson-Watt, David
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Marten, Neil
Sutcliffe, John


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mather, Carol
Tapsell, Peter


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Goodhart, Philip
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Norman


Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Temple, John M.


Green, Alan
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Grieve, Percy
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gummer, Selwyn
Molyneaux, James
Tilney, John


Gurden, Harold
Money, Erie
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Trew, Peter


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monro, Hector
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Montgomery, Fergus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mudd, David
Waddington, David


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Murton, Oscar
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Nabarro, Sir Gerald Walker, Rt. Hn.
Peter (Worcester)


Haselhurst, Alan
Neave, Airey
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hastings, Stephen
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wall, Patrick


Havers, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Walters, Dennis


Hawkins, Paul
Normanton, Tom
Ward Dame Irene


Hayhoe, Barney
Nott, John
Warren, Kenneth


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Onslow, Cranley
Weatherill, Bernard


Heseltine, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hicks, Robert
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Higgins, Terence L.
Osborn, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hiley, Joseph
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Wiggin, Jerry







Wilkinson, John
Worsley, Marcus
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Mr. Jasper More and


Woodnutt, Mark
Younger, Hn. George
Mr. Victor Goodhew.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Albu, Austen
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Foley, Maurice
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Allen, Scholefield
Foot, Michael
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Ford, Ben
Marquand, David


Armstrong, Ernest
Forrester, John
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Ashley, Jack
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Ashton, Joe
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mayhew, Christopher


Atkinson, Norman
Garrett, W. E.
Meachor, Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Barnes, Michael
Ginsburg, David
Mendelson, John


Barnett, Joel
Golding, John
Mikardo, Ian


Beaney, Alan
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Milian, Bruce


Berm, Rt, Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Molloy, William


Bishop, E. S.
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Booth, Albert
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Murray, Ronald King


Bradley, Tom
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Ogden, Eric


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hardy, Peter
O'Halloran, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Malley, Brian


Browns, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hart, Rt. Hn, Judith
Oram, Bert


Buchan, Norman
Hattersley, Roy
Orbach, Maurice


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burm)
Heffer, Eric S.
Orme, Stanley


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hilton, W. S.
Oswald, Thomas


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Horam, John
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonskire, W.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur


Cant, R, B.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Carmichael, Neil
Huckfield, Leslie
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pavitt, Laurie


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pendry, Tom


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pentland, Norman


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hunter, Adam
Perry, Ernest G.


Cohen, Stanley
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Coleman, Donald
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Prescott, John


Concannon, J. D.
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, William (Rugby)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Probert, Arthur


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
John, Brynmor
Rankin, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Jonnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Cronin, John
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Richard, Ivor


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, T. Alec (Rhodda, W.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Judd, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R.dnor)


Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman, Gerald
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kelley, Richard
Roper, John


Davies, G. Ellett (Rhondda, E.)
Kinnock, Neil
Rose, Paul B.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lambie, David
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lamond, James
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Latham, Arthur
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Deakins, Eric
Lawson, George
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dempsey, James
Leonard, Dick
Sillars, James


Doig, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silverman, Julius


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Skinner, Dennis


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Small, William


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lipton, Marcus
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Driberg, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth
Spearing, Nigel


Duffy, A. E. P.
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Lesile


Dunn, James A.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stallard, A. W.


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Steel, David


Badly, Alex
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Edelman, Maurice
McBride, Neil
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McCartney, Hugh
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McElhone, Frank
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Ellis, Tom
McGuire, Michael
Strang, Gavin


English, Michael
Mackenzie Gregor
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fernyhough, E.
Mackie, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Mackintosh, John P.
Swain, Thomas


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Taverne, Dick







Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardift,W.)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Tinn, James
Wallace, George
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Tomney, Frank
Watkins, David
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Torney, Tom
Wellbeloved, James
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Tuck, Raphael
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Urwiny T. W.
White, James (Glasgow, Po1lok)



Varley, Eric G.
Whitlock, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wainwright, Edwin
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. Kenneth Marks and




Mr. Joseph Harper.

Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

Clause 40

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO REPORTS AND ORDERS UNDER SECTIONS 38 AND 39

The Deputy Chairman: Does the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) wish to move Amendment No. 199, in page 29, line 11, after "relates", insert "or that the provisions are not longer required"?

Mr. Archer: Under protest, I refrain from moving it.
Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Murray: It would be wrong to take up much time on this Clause because, obviously, it is consequential upon those that we have just considered. However, there is one important point that I want to raise, since it is the basis on which we on this side of the Committee oppose the Clause.
It provides that, for a period of two years after a report has been made under the earlier provisions, the Industrial Court shall not entertain another application relating to the same circumstances. That is understandable. One would not want repeated applications to the court. It would not be helpful to industry to have that state of affairs.
The Clause goes on to say in subsection (1) that the court shall not entertain a report in such circumstances
… unless the Court is satisfied that there are special reasons for entertaining the application within that period.
That provision causes a great deal of disquiet on this side of the Committee, for two main reasons. The first is that the Bill gives no conception of what the "special reasons" are intended to com-

prise. We do not know what is contemplated for the Industrial Court and whether the reasons are to be legal or industrial reasons. If they are industrial reasons, the provision is yet another illustration of the point made repeatedly from this side of the Committee that the court being set up is an inappropriate body to adjudicate on matters coming before it.
If the "Special reasons" are industrial, we question whether a court of law—even an unusual one like this—is appropriate to adjudicate upon such matters. If the "special reasons" are legal, one has to bear in mind that a hybrid procedure has been used to take the reference to the Industrial Court.
The court is not a purely legal body. Before it gets a reference under Clauses 38 and 39 leading finally to a problem under Clause 40, matters are dealt with by those other hands mentioned in Clause 35 and by the Commission. Clause 35 makes it clear that, even at the level of the Commission, there will be a mixture of industrial knowledge and legal know-how which will make it important to know whether the "special reasons" are meant to be industrial or legal.
5.0 p.m.
Clause 37(3) deals with the Commission promoting and assisting discussions between the parties to the procedure agreement. It then stresses,
with a view to obtaining their agreement on new or revised provisions".
Then follow the important words,
…so formulated as to be capable of having effect as a legally enforceable contract.
Even at the Commission level one will clearly need. legal advice, so that whatever is forged from the negotiations or discussions can be legally enforced. It seems, therefore, most important that we should know what special reasons are contemplated.
I stress again the opposition of this side of the Committee to a body of this kind adjudicating on industrial matters.


For these and other reasons we shall oppose the Clause.

The Solicitor-General: I should like to give one word of explanation to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray). Of course, the main objective of the Clause is to prevent a series of repeated applications when a matter has already been considered, adjudicated upon, and reported by the Commission.
The reference to special reasons is in the context of an application under Clause 35. The body which will have to consider whether special reasons exist is the industrial court. It will have to consider whether there are special reasons amongst those set out in Clause 35 which justify it, because of the persistence or recurrence of strife or disorder, making an additional reference to the Commission earlier than it would otherwise do so. The court will answer the questions, looking at the matter as a court and with the assistance of its industrial members. It will do that in the light of the legislation as a whole having regard to the factors which must be considered under Clause 35.

Mr. Murray: I must press the hon. and learned Gentleman on this point. What the Solicitor-General said seems to indicate that, although we are not to have an inquiry into the circumstances which give rise to a reference under Clause 35 for two years, in considering special reasons we shall go back to those circumstances.

The Solicitor-General: This is right, but in changed circumstances. The original application will have been made and referred to the Commission which will probably have spent some time considering it and will have reported; but, for some reason or another, neither side will have applied to get the report made part of an enforceable procedure. It may be that 12 months thereafter the conditions in the unit of employment

have become so bad that, applying the tests set out in Clause 35, it is apparent that the maintenance of orderly industrial relations has been seriously impeded, and specially so, and that there have been substantial losses of work time. In those narrow circumstances I suggest that it is right that there should be this power in the court to conclude that there are special reasons. That is the way we approach the matter.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney): The hon. and learned Gentleman has given one example of what might constitute special circumstances. To justify the inclusion of this provision one would think that there must be more than a single set of circumstances. Before leaving the subject, might I ask the Solicitor-General to give two or three examples of conditions which would be regarded as special circumstances justifying this special consideration by the court?

The Solicitor-General: I have in fact, although in a compressed form, given more than one example. The phrase "special reasons" is not expressly defined. The question will have to be answered by the court in the light of the tests laid down in Clause 35.
There are several alternative matters. There are alternatives in Clause 35(3)(a) and (b). If those conditions, which normally allow a Clause 35 application to be considered favourably by the court, arise in a special way so that the court concludes that there are special reasons for allowing this early reapplication, then it is able to do so.
I point to two alternative matters, but there are more than two in Clause 35(3)(a) and (b). In that sense I commend the Clause as it stands to the Committee.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 303, Noes 259.

Division No. 131.]
AYES
[5.5 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Balniel, Lord
Bitten, John


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Biggs-Davison, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Batsford, Brian
Blaker, Peter


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)


Astor, John
Bell, Ronald
Body, Richard


Atkins, Humphrey
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Boscawen, Robert


Awdry, Daniel
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Bossom, Sir Clive


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Benyon, W.
Bowden, Andrew


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John




Brain, Bernard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Montgomery, Fergus


Bray, Ronald
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
More, Jasper


Brewis, John
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mudd, David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Murton, Oscar


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Haselhurst, Alan
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bryan, Paul
Hastings, Stephen
Neave, Airey


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Havers, Michael
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Buck, Antony
Hawkins, Paul
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hayhoe, Barney
Normanton, Tom


Burden, F. A.
Heseltine, Michael
Nott, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hicks, Robert
Onsow, Cranley


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Higgins, Terence L.
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Carlisle, Mark
Hiley, Joseph
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Osborn, John


Cary, Sir Robert
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Channon, Paul
Holland, Philip
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Chapman, Sydney
Holt, Miss Mary
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hordern, Peter
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hornby, Richard
Peel, John


Churchill, W. S.
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Percival, Ian


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Clegg, Walter
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pink, R. Bonner


Cockeram, Eric
Hunt, John
Pounder, Rafton


Cooke, Robert
Hutchinson, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Coombs, Derek
Iremonger, T. L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cooper,
A. E. James, David
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cormack, Patrick
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Costain, A. P.
Jessel, Toby
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Critchley, Julian
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Raison, Timothy


Crouch, David
Jopling, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hon., James


Crowder, F. P.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Redmond, Robert


Curran, Charles
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.


d'Avlgdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kilfedder, James
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dean, Paul
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kinsey, J. R.
Ridsdale, Julian


Dixon, Piers
Kirk, Peter
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kitson, Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Knox, David
Rossl, Hugh (Hornsey)


Drayson, G. B.
Lambton, Antony
Rost, Peter


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lane, David
Royle, Anthony


Dykes, Hugh
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Eden, Sir John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott, Nicholas


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

Scott-Hopkins, James


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Sharples, Richard


Eyre, Reginald
Longden, Gilbert
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Farr, John
Loveridge, John
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fell, Anthony
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Simeons, Charles


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
MacArthur, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fidler, Michael
McCrindle, R. A.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Finsherg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McLaren, Martin
Soref, Harold


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Speed, Keith


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McMaster, Stanley



Fookes, Miss Janet
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Spence, John


Foster, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sproat, lain


Fowler, Norman
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stainton, Keith


Fox, Marcus
Maddan, Martin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fry, Peter
Madel, David
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maginnis, John E.
Stodart,Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Gardner, Edward
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Gibson-Watt, David
Marten, Neil
Stokes, John


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mather, Carol
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maude, Angus
Sutcliffe, John


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Tapsell, Peter


Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gorst, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Gower, Raymond
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Gray, Hamish
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Tebbit, Norman


Green, Alan
Miscampbell, Norman
Temple, John M.


Grieve, Percy
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Gummer, Selwyn
Molyneaux, James
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gurden, Harold
Money, Ernie
Tilney, John


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monro, Hector
Trew, Peter







Tugendhat, Christopher
Walters, Dennis
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Ward, Dame Irene
Woodnutt, Mark


Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Warren, Kenneth
Worsley, Marcus


Vickers, Dame Joan
Weatherill, Bernard
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Waddington, David
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Younger, Hn. George


Walder, David (Clitheroe)
White, Roger (Gravesend)



Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wiggin, Jerry
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Wall, Patrick
Wilkinson, John
Mr. Tim Fortescue.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Fernyhough, E.
Loughlin, Charles


Albu, Austen
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Allen, Scholefieid
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil


Armstrong, Ernest
Foley, Maurice
McCartney, Hugh


Ashley, Jack
Foot, Michael
McElhone, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael


Atkinson, Norman
Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Gregor


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackie, John


Barnes, Michael
Freeson, Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.


Barnett, Joel
Galpern, Sir Myer
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Garrett, W. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Gilbert, Dr. John
MacPherson, Malcolm


Bishop, E. S.
Ginsburg, David
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Golding, John
Mallaiieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Marquand, David


Booth, Albert
Gourlay, Harry
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bradley, Tom
Grant John D. (Islington, E.)
Mayhew, Christopher


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Meacher, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mendelson, John


Buchan, Norman
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mikardo, Ian


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hardy, Peter
Millan, Bruce


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Harper, Joseph
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Milne, Edward (Biyth)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Molloy, William


Cant, R. B.
Hattersley, Roy
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Carmichael, Nell
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)
Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Horam, John
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Abeavon)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Murray, Ronald King


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Huckfield, Lesile
Ogden, Eric


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Halloran, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Malley, Brian


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oram, Bert


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orbach, Maurice


Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Hunter, Adam
Orme, Stanley


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Irvine,RtHn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Oswald, Thomas


Crawshaw, Richard
Janner, Greville
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.p'cras,S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)




Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pardoe, John


Darling, Rt. Hn. George




Davidson, Arthur
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
John Brynmor
Pavitt, Laurie


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pendry, Tom


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pentland, Norman


Davis, S. Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Perry, Ernest G.


Deakins, Eric
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prescott, John


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, T. Alec (Rhodda, W.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dempsey, James
Judd, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)


Doig, Peter
Kaufman, Gerald
Probert, Arthur


Dormand, J. D.
Kelley, Richard
Rankin, John


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kinnock, Neil
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lambie, David
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Driberg, Tom
Lamond, James
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Duffy, A. E. P.
Latham, Arthur
Richard, Ivor


Dunn, James A.
Lawson, George
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunnett, Jack
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Eadie, Alex
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edelman, Maurice
Leonard, Dick
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Arthur (w. Ham, N.)
Roper, John


Ellis, Tom
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rose, Paul B.


English, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Evans, Fred
Lomas, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)







Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wallace, George


Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Strang, Gavin
Watkins, David


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Wellbeloved, James


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Swain, Thomas
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Sillars, James
Taverne, Dick
Whitlock, William


Silverman, Julius
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardlff,W.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Skinner, Dennis
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Small, William
Tinn, James
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Tomney, Frank
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Spearing, Nigel
Torney, Tom
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Spriggs, Leslie
Tuck, Raphael
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Stallard, A. W.
Urwin, T. W.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Steel, David
Variey, Eric G.



Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Wainwright, Edwin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Walden, Bran(B'm'ham, All Saints)
Mr. Kenneth Marks and


Stoudart, David (Swindon)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mr. James Hamilton.

Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41

DEFINITIONS RELATING TO BARGAINING STRUCTURE

The Deputy Chairman: The next Amendment selected is No. 696, in page 29, line 25, leave out from second 'rights' to the end of line 26.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Under protest, I do not move this Amendment.
Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Chairman: I should remind the Committee that it would be appropriate to discuss with Clause 41 new Clause No. 15, headed "Reference to Commission of request by trade union for recognition",
.—(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that an employer or group of associated employers has not complied with a request for recognition made by or on behalf of one or more trade unions, or has failed to honour recognition previously given and has been requested to restore that recognition, the Secretary of State may, after complying with subsection (3) of this section, refer that request to the Commission if he is of the opinion that it is expedient to do so.
(2) Any such request for recognition as is mentioned in the preceding subsection—

(a) may be a request for recognition either in respect of all the employees of the employer or group of employers or in respect only of one or more descriptions of those employees, and
(b) whether it relates to all those employees or only to one or more descriptions of them, may a request either for recognition generally or for recognition in respect of one or more particular matters and (in either case) may be a request for recognition at all levels (whether national, regional or local) or for recognition at one or more such levels.


(3) Before referring any request to the Commission under this section, the Secretary of State shall give notice of the proposal—

(a) to the employer (or, if more than one, to each of the employers) to whom the request was made and to the trade union or trade unions by or on behalf of which it was made, and
(b) to the General Council and the Confederation; and, if any of them offer any advice with respect to the proposal, shall take that advice into consideration.

(4) Where a request for recognition is referred to the Commission in accordance with subsection (1) of this section the Commission shall enquire into the request and shall report to the Secretary of State along with any recommendation which they may wish to make, and on such a report being made to him, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, order the employer or employers to whom the request was made to recognise the trade union or trade unions to the extent specified in the order; and where such an order has been made by the Secretary of State the recognition prescribed in the order shall be an implied term of every contract of employment between the employer or employers and any employee for whose benefit that recognition is intended.
(5) For the purpose of assisting the Commission in their examination of any question referred to them under this section the Commission may, if they think fit, take one or more ballots of employees appearing to the Commission to be employees to whom the question directly relates and the Commission shall take account of the results of any such ballot in arriving at their conclusions on that question.
(6) In this section any reference to the recognition of a trade union by an employer shall be so construed as to include the taking by the employer of all such action in connection with the carrying on of relevant negotiations with the trade union as might reasonably be expected to be taken by an employer ready and willing to carry on such negotiations; and any reference to recognising a trade union to any particular extent shall be construed accordingly.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: In opposing Clause 41 and the subsequent Clauses dependent upon it, we are seeking to replace it with new Clause 15. Clause 41 introduces, for the first time in British industrial relations, the


concept of the bargaining agency. Without pre-empting the debate on following Clauses, it is essential to say something about what is involved here.
An application can be made to the Industrial Court by one or more trade unions, an employer or the Secretary of State. It is interesting and significant that, whereas a trade union can apply only for a trade union or a joint panel of unions to be the sole bargaining agent, an employer or the Secretary of State may apply for any organisation of workers. In practice, "any organisation of workers" could mean an unregistered trade union, but it could equally mean that an employer or the Secretary of State could apply for a house union, a company union or a similar organisation, which could seriously affect the bona fide union. I suspect that right hon. Gentlemen opposite intend that it should do just that.
The Industrial Court can refer the question to the C.I.R. which in turn must transmit its proposals to the Industrial Court, and so on. From the moment that the application is made—this can be used by employers—it is unlawful for a genuine union to take industrial action about recognition. The situation can be made worse, if what we hear is true, because the Government replied to a question in another place that there will be a special register of professional associations which can have access to the Industrial Court to seek exclusive recognition. Lord Windlesham said in the other place, in reply to a Question from Lord Janner:
… a number of professional associations have made representations to the Government, and after consideration of those representations it has been decided to introduce an Amendment to the Industrial Relations Bill in another place which will enable professional associations which have a negotiating function to be placed on a special register and thereby benefit from all the privileges accorded to trade unions by the Bill. The Charity Commissioners may feel that it would be desirable to wait and see in what form the legislation goes on the Statute Book before deciding about the position of those professional associations which are registered as charities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lord, 28th January, 1971; Vol. 314, c. 1061.]
My hon. Friends and I have not yet seen the Amendment, but it is very interesting that this point was made in the other place. We are entitled to know precisely what is the position. If there is to be a

special register which allows the professional associations to have the rights or privileges accorded to trade unions, that is tantamount to making trade unionism unlawful for many workers. It will cause a great deal of bitterness amongst trade unions, especially those which are trying to organise amongst the professional groups.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Does my hon. Friend agree that this makes a nonsense of the closed shop argument advanced by the Government?

Mr. Heffer: I certainly agree. The Government must tell us precisely what the position is.
If under this procedure only one union is granted recognition as a bargaining unit, members of other unions will have to resign and join the union recommended by the C.I.R. It is all very well for Ministers to say, as they did the other day, that workers can belong to two unions, but that is not a recognised principle within the trade union movement. A man belongs to one union or the other. The Government are creating a new situation. If men did not join the union that is accepted as the sole bargaining agency, they would become non-unionists. Under those circumstances, the Commission on Industrial Relations, under the Bill, could overturn a T.U.C. disputes committee decision based on the Bridlington principle No. 5.
Hon. Members opposite should understand precisely what is involved. They are saying that they want to strengthen trade union authority and the responsible trade unionists. Apart from anything else, the lengthy procedures outlined in the Clause are in no way conducive to speedy solutions to problems of recognition and so on. They will not help the trade unions involved. It is suggested that we could have a ballot on top of the reference from the Industrial Relations Court to the C.I.R., and then a ballot, back again to the Industrial Relations Court, and so on. The whole structure is incredibly complicated and totally unnecessary. It is quite clear that the complicated procedure proposed by the Government would not give any real aid to the unions which are trying to gain recognition from reactionary employers.


It would create break-away unions. Workers who are temporarily in dispute with their union could seek a reference to the C.I.R. In the United States there are multitudinous groups of unions as bargaining agencies all over the country, not only in the same industry but often in the same towns and within the same companies. This creates utter confusion in the trade union movement.
The Clause is a recipe for industrial chaos and will lead to Dutch auctions of unions competing with one another for membership. That is not industrial common sense. Union rivalry will develop where it does not exist; unions which have lived together for years, which have refused to poach from each other and have abided by the Bridlington Agreement, could begin to score off each other. If that is the Government's intention, I do not understand how they can say at the same time that they believe in responsible trade unionism. This is the very opposite of responsible trade unionism. It could lead to the sort of bitterness and rivalry that exists among certain American trade unions, with the Teamsters trying to score off the U.A.W., the U.A.W. trying to score off the electrical workers, and so on. Perhaps that is what the Government want. Perhaps they want the trade unions to be divided in that way, but it is not acceptable to the trade union movement.
The Bridlington Agreement has helped not only the unions but the employers. In the past 30 years the T.U.C. has dealt successfully with more than 1,000 interunion disputes through the application of the Agreement. Under the Government's proposals we could become involved in Dutch auctions, the very opposite of solving the problems as they are now solved under the Bridlington Agreement.
The C.I.R. established by my right hon. Friend, which has done a first-class job, would lose its rôle of persuasion and promoting good practice. It would become very much the instrument of the Industrial Relations Court, rather than itself sorting out the problems. In Clause 43(3) we find that the specifications will be laid down by the Court and not the C.I.R. This again indicates a subordination of the C.I.R.
5.30 p.m.
A further point that requires making is that, after an application under Clause 51(1), after an order of the National Industrial Relations Court under Clause 51(2), (3), (4) or (6), and after any recommendation of the C.I.R. under Clause 51(5), an unfair industrial practice can apply, and can apply for two years. I stress again that, if a house union were to be recommended by the C.I.R., a genuine bona fide trade union could not obtain recognition for at least two years. For this and many other reasons which I have not been able to bring out for lack of time, we reject Clause 41 and wish to put new Clause 15 in its place.
New Clause 15 would, firstly, give the Secretary of State a right, after consultations with the employers and the trade unions—that is, with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I.—to refer a case of recognition to the C.I.R. I stress that it is recognition that is involved. This is a very important point indeed. Secondly, the recognition issued could be for one or more unions. Thirdly, after the C.I.R. had studied the situation and reported to the Secretary of State, then, and only then, he could issue an order to the employer to recognise the union or unions. This is in line with the proposals made in my right hon. Friend's Bill, which unfortunately we did not pass because of the election. It is in line with the fact that the T.U.C. would, of course, be involved at all stages, as would the employers' organisations. We also suggest in new Clause 15 that there could be a ballot of workers and that this would have to be taken into account by the C.I.R. when arriving at its conclusion.
But these proposals do not follow those of the Government, which are all within the legal framework laid down on the basis of the Industrial Relations Court. We believe that our proposals are a constructive alternative to those being put forward by the Government. We recognise that there are problems of recognition. That is clear. We know that certain employers refuse to accept the elementary principle in this modern age that the trade union movement should be recognised, that unions should be recognised as a basis for proper voluntarily negotiated collective agreements. We can give example after


example of employers who refuse recognition to the trade union movement. There was a bitter example in Stockport, where a gigantic battle was waged for two years in order to gain trade union recognition. So we accept the fact that there are problems of recognition and that some employers are intransigent and seek to avoid recognition of trade unions.
In our proposals, we equally seek to avoid the need for workers in this modern age to take strike action in order to receive trade union recognition. We believe that, in these modern days, it is totally unnecessary that they should have to do so, and that is why we put forward our proposals. What we are seeking to do is to maintain the important voluntary principle, which is in contrast with the complicated legal framework which the Government propose. Our proposals seek to strengthen and improve the work of the C.I.R., and that again is entirely different from the Government's proposals, hemmed in as they are by the Bill's legal framework. Therefore I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against Clause 41, and equally—I am not sure whether we can do so under the rules of the House—to vote for new Clause 15 if we have the opportunity, because it is a sensible, sound and constructive alternative to the Government's proposals.

Mr. David Mitchell: I find myself in a good deal of agreement with a number of things said by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer). I want to raise a number of points which have emerged from what has been said. This takes us back to Clause 11 (3), which says that certain things follows in relation to an agency shop if a trade union is recognised by the employer as having negotiating rights. In Clause 41, we find that "negotiating rights"
… means rights, recognised by an employer or by two or more associated employers, to participate, on behalf of all or some of the employees …
in regard to collective agreements. What we do not have in the Bill is any means by which one can ensure that an employer will recognise. Therefore it seems to me, both in relation to the agency shop, where this is one of the gateways which have to be crossed, and in relation to the recognition of a sole bargaining agent,

there is a necessity to secure the right for recognition.
I concur in the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will not be embarrassed by that. I have had in my constituency a case in an engineering works where the union claimed that a majority of the employees wished it to represent them. The employers took the view that this was not a correct assessment of the situation and refused to recognise the union. The only course open to the union was to call a strike in order to secure recognition. I agree that in this day and age we should be more civilised about this.
In our original "Fair Deal at Work" proposals, we talked about providing a basis for a vote to decide whether a union should have negotiating rights. I recognise that the Bill, in relation to the sole bargaining agent, is designed to deal with the conflict situation between two unions, and I support its proposals in that connection. But where in the Bill is there power for a union to call for a ballot to show an employer that it has a majority of workers in the plant? I am thinking of the situation in which there is no conflict as to which union should be recognised and where there is no need to go to the C.I.R. for the boundaries to be drawn and no need to go to the Industrial Court. I am considering a situation in which there is clear indication that the majority of the employees support a certain union and want it to represent them and which should, therefore, be given recognition by the employer.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: On a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but surely all the arguments, from both sides of the Committee, are directed to the proposals on the recognition of sole bargaining agent, which is Clause 42. I understood that we were taking Clause 41 which relates to bargaining structure.

The Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order. The Chair will watch order as best it can.

Mr. Mitchell: Further to the point of order. I was about to sit down but I must say that my hon. Friend will have noticed that among the things listed as definitions here is the definition of negotiating rights. The point that I am


making is that there is insufficient basis for securing those outlined in this Clause.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I hope that you will guide me as to what is and what is not in order, Mr. Deputy Chairman.
I want to support the new Clause and to comment on those parts of the Bill of which Clause 41 forms an essential ingredient. These are not only the most revolutionary, perhaps I should say counter-revolutionary, parts in the Bill, but they are also revolutionary in English law. We knew before the Bill was presented that it would contain provisions to make collective agreements legally binding. However, until the Bill appeared, I think all of us had assumed that those agreements were to be agreements to which the parties, through trade unions, had assented. Nothing in either the Conservative Party manifesto or, "Fair Deal at Work" in any way indicated that we should be getting collective bargaining agreements made by sole bargaining agents who had been appointed under the provisions of the Clauses we are now considering and which would be binding on members of trade unions who had had no part in the negotiation of those agreements.
Clauses 41 to 50 provide for an application to be made by either a trade union or an employer for the appointment of a sole bargaining agent. The court must refer that to the Commission and the matter can then be settled at any stage by agreement. When the Commission reports back to the court it has to give notice to those who would be affected by it. That is under Clause 44(2).
There is no provision in the Bill for any notice to be given to the unions whose members are likely to be affected, even in a situation in which an employer is pressing either for a staff association, a tame company union, to be appointed as the sole bargaining agent or in which an application is made by an employer or by a trade union which has made a satisfactory bargain for its own members with the employer, for that union to be appointed as sole bargaining agent. There is no provision in the Bill which would prevent a union representing 51 per cent. of the employees in a firm or industry

being appointed as the sole bargaining agent.
There is not even any duty on the Commission to make sure that the unions whose members are likely to be affected would be given notice of the proposal. The Commission is required to satisfy itself that any proposal put forward would promote a satisfactory and lasting settlement, but there is no provision for the unions to be given any notice, let alone for them to make representations to the Commission or the court.
It may be extravagant to suppose that the Commission would make a recommendation to the court when it knows that 60 per cent. of the employees affected belong to one union and 40 per cent. to another, but there are many more marginal situations in which, without greater protection than we have in the Bill as it stands, there is a great danger of the Commission making a recommendation to the court which could produce an absolutely disastrous situation. There could be a situation in which one union has a minority of members with interests quite different from those of the majority and that minority union interest could be wholly overridden by the provisions of the Bill.
5.45 p.m.
What is of even greater importance is not so much the majority opinion putting itself forward or being put forward but the employer putting forward a staff association, a tame company union. We have had situations, for example, in the banks, in which a staff association was for a long time the major "union". Almost any retail organisation in which the branches are split up throughout the country carries the danger of having a staff association being promoted within it as a sole bargaining agent. It will be almost impossible, once a sole bargaining agent has been established—without the Commission even having heard the representations which the unions would have sought to make—to upset that arrangement and the staff association will remain the bargaining agent until the signatures of 20 per cent. of the, often very widely scattered, employees affected can be collected.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: On a point of order. May I reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend the


Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger). It seems to me, listening to the debate and reading Clause 15, that it should be taken in conjunction with Clause 42. Clause 41 is simply a definition Clause with an interpretation of various parts. What hon. Gentlemen opposite are debating are the terms laid down in Clause 42 and in new Clause 15.

The Deputy Chairman: The Committee will be aware that new Clause 15 is being taken with the Motion that Clause 41 stand part of the Bill, and it is in order to discuss them.

Mr. Cooper: Then may we take it that we can discuss Clause 42 in the same context, because that is what is happening?

The Deputy Chairman: We are at present discussing Clause 41 with new Clause 15, and I think that we should be wise to adhere to that.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Further to that point of order. This is a difficult matter. The Chair has referred to the new Clause. It is not compatible with the interpretation Clause in the Bill. If that new Clause were inserted in place of the interpretation Clause it would make a nonsense of this part of the Bill. What my hon. Friends have said is prefectly right. I appreciate that the Chair has to make the selection, but in this case the selection as it is, without some reference to the next Clause, would make a nonsense of the Bill.

The Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member will appreciate that the Chair has made the selection and I have called that selection, which is Clause 41, with which new Clause 15 can be discussed. This is what we should adhere to.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: The provisions introduced by new Clause 15 are infinitely superior to those already in the Bill. Those existing provisions, particularly to do with the sole bargaining agent mean that there are loopholes which provide opportunities for enormous abuses. Many of my hon. Friends have extensive experience in situations in which unionism is strong. Although I have some experience of such situations, I have even more experience of situations in which the trade unions are weak and seeking to establish themselves.
My fear is that, as these provisions stand the trade unions will find it almost impossible to function properly in situations where unions are not yet established. A sole bargaining agent will have been appointed, either by the employer having made a bargain favourable to himself with a trade union, which is favourable only to the members of that union, to the exclusion of other workers, or to the exclusion of the members of unions representing workers likely to be affected at a later stage or to the exclusion of members belonging to a more aggressive union which might seek to recruit members in that industry. This is a real problem in the areas in which unionism is very weak and wage levels low.
An employer on a construction site might make a bargain at an early stage of the job and appoint one particular union or his own staff association as sole bargaining agent. At that time he has a relatively small number of employees and he can get their approval or, if necessary, buy their approval, to the appointment of that union or association as sole bargaining agent. Once that union is so established, the tradesmen and craftsmen who come on to the site later, and whose unions will not even have been given the opportunity of making representations when the Commission is considering whether to appoint a bargaining agent, will have no opportunity to make their case. An even graver situation arises with banks and retail trade distribution.
Whatever may happen in the votes which we shall be taking later, I hope that the Government will reconsider those parts of the Bill which leave so many loopholes for abuse and make it possible for agreements to be made for sole bargaining agents to be appointed when the unions and men most likely to be affected are not even informed of them. The entire procedure envisaged in these Clauses is so unsatisfactory that I hope that the Committee will support new Clause 15.

The Solicitor-General: The Committee at least approaches the debate on these two matters—the provisions set out in Clause 41 and the alternative proposals in new Clause 15—with an important declaration of principle from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). He told the Committee that he


recognises that, in pursuit of recognition disputes, strike action is totally unnecessary.

Mr. Iremonger: I am sorry to press my right hon. and learned Friend, but surely new Clause 15 cannot be an alternative to Clause 41. It is an alternative to Clause 42.

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Heffer rose—

The Solicitor-General: I have just given way, and I am rising to deal with the point put by my hon. Friend—if I may be allowed to deal with one at a time. My hon. Friend expressed an anxiety which I think is on a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Deputy Chairman, the concepts embodied in Clause 41 are fundamental to the Clauses which follow it. There are definitions of "bargaining unit", "negotiating rights", "sole bargaining agent", and so on. They are to be contrasted with the provisions contained in new Clause 15. I have no doubt that, as a matter of order, the provisions contained in new Clause 15 could have been set alongside one of several debates on the Clauses in this Part of the Bill, but the Committee may feel—and I am probably entirely out of order in saying this—that it is not an inconvenient context in which to discuss the alternative approaches, so as to avoid the frequent repetition of the same point on successive Clauses. That is the spirit in which I am approaching it, and I hope that I am not going out of order in doing so.

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Heffer rose—

The Solicitor-General: I will just repeat the point and provoke the hon. Gentleman once again, if I have to. I was saying that the hon. Member for Walton had made an important statement when he said that in recognition disputes strike action is—and I utter what he said in parenthesis—or ought to be—totally unnecessary.

Mr. Heffer: What I said was that strikes ought not to be necessary in this modern day and age. I did not say that trade unions should not take strike action in present circumstances to force recognition. I was saying that we should devise a system, as was envisaged in my right hon. Friend's Bill, for forcing recog-

nition upon recalcitrant, reactionary employers without it being necessary for workers to take strike action.

The Solicitor-General: I do not wish to misunderstand or misrepresent the hon. Gentleman, but we are here, almost for the first time, plainly on important common ground. There are certain types of strike in certain situations which ought not in a modern society to be necessary if society formulates an alternative machinery for the resolution of the underlying disputes. That is precisely what this legislation is about—the creation of the alternative machinery which the hon. Gentleman said was to be found in the right hon. Lady's Bill for the resolution of these matters.
This is the point of principle which we make. We seek only to identify certain types of industrial action as unfair where we are striving to produce alternative machinery for the resolution of those disputes. I am delighted to have the support of the hon. Member for Walton in at least identifying the good sense of the principle. We may disagree on how we apply it, but we have had from him an important acknowledgment of principle.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is necessary to provide machinery of this kind—and I gladly accept his words. we can all think of examples—to compel recalcitrant employers who unreasonably fail to recognise trade unions. I mince no words and make no important concession in acknowledging, as hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have said, that such situations exist. Fine —that is what our machinery is about.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West) rose—

The Solicitor-General: I will just make the second part of my point and then give way. It is unrealistic to suppose that disputes and recognition strikes arise solely because of confrontations and disputes between unions seeking recognition and recalcitrant employers. The hon. Member spoke about the way in which disputations arise between the Teamsters and the Union of Automobile Workers in the United States. Fair enough. It may well be easy, but it is quite unrealistic, to shut our eyes to the


fact that inter-union recognition disputes are an alternative and important cause of trouble in this country as well.

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Heffer rose—

The Solicitor-General: I will give way first to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme).

Mr. Orme: I am following the argument which the Solicitor-General is making, but he should acknowledge that, whilst the trade unions do not want to take industrial action on recognition, they have never asked for the law to be brought in to enable them to achieve recognition. They have asked for better agreements and for employers to have a better understanding. We have eleven million trade unionists in this country, without the law, and we do not need it now.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman says that trade unions have never asked for the law to be brought in in this way. I do not want to weary the House with examples, but in a number of cases which have been heard before the existing Industrial Court unions have sought, understandably and rightly, to require employers—who are not conforming to an industry-wide agreement because the industry-wide agreement provides for recognition—to recognise them. The existing machinery of the Industrial Court does not provide for it. Unions have struggled—I know, I have seen them—to use the 1959 Act procedure as a means of securing recognition. They have not adequate means of securing recognition, hence they refer the matter to the Industrial Court. It is for that reason we are introducing—

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the situation in the United States of America and I pointed to the rivalry which exists between certain unions there. Nobody would deny that even here there are arguments between unions which at the moment are overwhelmingly dealt with by the Trades Union Congress disputes machinery, which solves those problems within the context of the trade union movement. But what the Government proposes to do is to take this outside the trade union machinery, and the establishment of sole bargaining agents would

lead to and develop rivalry between unions where in the past such rivalry has not existed. In fact, in the United States rivalry between unions has developed on a much greater scale because of the type of legislation which the hon. and learned Gentleman is proposing.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman has made those points in his own contribution and I will deal with them. The important point is that this machinery does not drive people away, any more than does the machinery in new Clause 15, from making use of the existing important voluntary T.U.C. interunion disputes machinery. To take an example from the other side of the Atlantic, one of the provisions in the original 1947 Taft-Hartley legislation was designed to prevent demarcation disputes. One of the first things that happened when that legislation first came on to the Statute Book was a substantial number of applications before the National Labour Relations Board for the resolution of those demarcation disputes.
One of the consequences that followed the existence of the statutory machinery was the establishment of a new body covering specifically the construction industry. This body was representative on a voluntary basis of both sides. It was spurred on by the existence of the statutory machinery and voluntarily resolved dispute after dispute. This is the way in which we visualise the law providing a safety valve machinery in situations such as the hon. Gentleman acknowledges are without remedy at the moment, but in no sense obstructing the actions of existing voluntary bodies.

Mr. Heffer: We have already done it.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman interrupts from a sitting position and I do not want to raise the temperature of the debate. To answer his point, it is no use saying on the one hand, "We have already done it" and on the other hand asserting that there is here a situation in which people resort to strike action and society ought to provide an alternative machinery.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. and learned Gentleman should get this matter clear. It arises from the fact that he does not know what has already happened. In the construction industry the trade unions


have already established machinery for dealing with demarcation disputes. This has already been done on a voluntary basis without the law being introduced. Furthermore, this has been done, apart from the T.U.C. Bridlington agreement, in regard to inter-union rivalry, poaching and so on.

The Solicitor-General: I acknowledged that much is being done, but the fact remains that disputes of this kind are far from unique or unknown in our society. If one looks at the original provisions of "In Place of Strife", it rightly said that the right of a union to secure recognition from a recalcitrant employer was recognised; but the Report stated in paragraph 60:
Questions of conflict for recognition between rival unions present greater difficulties … disputes over recognition between powerful unions can cause widespread disruption and, unless peaceful methods of finding a solution can be evolved, such disputes will be settled on the basis of which union or group of unions can do, or threaten to do, the greatest damage to the economy. The Government believes that this is intolerable in a modern society. …
We believe it to be equally intolerable for a recalcitrant employer to decline recognition to a union which is strongly supported and for unions to fight it out in this way. We believe it understandable that that kind of strike arises and persists so long as society fails to provide an alternative remedy. That is what we are suggesting.
To come back to the closing part of this paragraph in the document "In Place of Strife", it reads, at the end:
The employer would then be liable to a financial penalty if he refused to recognise the union or unions which the C.I.R. recommended should be recognised, or recognised one against which it had recommended.
That is the second part of the package.
A union which used coercive action to obstruct the implementation of the C.I.R.'s recommendations would also be liable to a financial penalty.
The right hon. Lady and her right hon. Friends are entitled to say that they have changed their minds. Indeed, some hon. Members opposite are entitled to say, "We have never agreed with our right hon. Friend anyway." But we are entitled to say that in this paragraph a sensible diagnosis was being made and that it is consistent with the duty of the present Government to follow that diag-

nosis and to produce the solutions we have here. It is unrealistic for hon. Members to say—[Interruption.]

Mrs. Castle: Leaving aside the argument whether my hon. Friends ever agreed with the policy or whether we have changed our minds, will the hon. and learned Gentleman not admit that an integral part of "In Place of Strife" was that the T.U.C. was to have a statutory right for a reasonable period in which to solve the problem first? In other words, there was to be built into the statutory provisions the recognition that the T.U.C. was the ideal body to settle these matters and that the law ought to provide for that.

The Solicitor-General: But the law does not in any case stand in the way of the T.U.C, doing that.

Mrs. Castle: Of course it does.

The Solicitor-General: The machinery proposed in the Bill does no such thing. There is nothing in any of the provisions to stop the T.U.C. and every responsible trade unionist, as they see this Bill marching its way to the Statute Book, or indeed, arriving on the Statute Book, saying, "We do not regard the intervention of the law as necessary on this matter; we will ensure that our own machinery will resolve these matters."

Mrs. Castle: This is a vital point and I should like to come back upon it. It is one thing to say, "Let the T.U.C. strengthen its machinery and then nobody will want to use the law." It is a different thing to say that nobody shall be allowed to use the law until the T.U.C. has first by law been given the right to deal with it. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong to say that is compatible with his provisions which, after these Clauses are passed, will give the right to one or more trade union or an employer, or the Secretary of State, to make application and set the machinery in motion regardless of what the T.U.C. is doing.

The Solicitor-General: I fully accept the right hon. Lady's point. It is an entirely different thing to say that nobody may invoke the machinery unless and until the T.U.C. has intervened. But that is to exclude from access to this important new procedure society as a whole, represented by the Secretary of


State, and employers and individuals who are being grievously damaged. I do not believe, if we wish to encourage voluntary action by the T.U.C., that it is right to give that body or any other a right of veto over the sensible procedures set out in these provisions.

Mrs. Castle: Will the Solicitor-General admit that there is a fundamental difference in principle between his law and "In Place of Strife"?

The Solicitor-General: I acknowledge that there is certainly a difference.

Mrs. Castle: Now we have it. Now we have got rid of all the nonsense.

The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Lady seeks to gain too much from my answer on that point. I have gone on wearily but accurately drawing attention to the similarities between proposals and those put forward by the right hon. Lady. The fact that the right hon. Lady has moved away from her original prescription is something inescapably and indelibly imprinted on the minds of the Committee, as on the mind of the country; and there will be no getting away from that.
Coming now to the general argument advanced by the hon. Member he says that all things are to be solved entirely by the voluntary procedure. Some days have been devoted to a discussion of the monstrosity of imposing upon anyone an agreement to which he may not be a party. I invite the Committee to look for a moment in that context on the assertion of hon. and right hon. Members on the other side who rely on voluntarism, at paragraph (4) of New Clause 15, where we come to the heart of the voluntary alternative put forward by those who assert the freedom of contract as a principle to stand above everything else.
It provides that after a recommendation has been made:
… the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, order the employer or employers to whom the request was made to recognise the trade union or trade unions to the extent specified in the Order …".
That is in the heartland of voluntarism. The Secretary of State, if he thinks fit, can order an employer to recognise. We recognise the need for comparable remedies and provide them through the machinery here. But right hon. Members

opposite cannot stand with the white sheet of voluntarism around their shoulders and invite the country to ignore what is underneath. The next sentence reads:
and where such an Order has been made by the Secretary of State the recognition prescribed in the Order shall be an implied term of every contract of employment between the employer or employers and … any employee for whose benefit that recognition is intended.
Here we have the employees on whose behalf recognition has been sought. They may be reluctant or unwilling members of a union unable, on the case put forward by the Labour Party, to escape membership of that union. But those employees, with the employers, are to have imposed upon them by order of the Secretary of State an agreement by which both are bound, and which becomes part of the terms and conditions of employment. It is an alternative remedy for pursing the legislative objective; but I say to hon. Members opposite that to put forward that remedy, to say that there is no place for our prescription to resolve a difficult situation and to say that they are still holding the banner of voluntarism: that, with respect, is nonsense.
I will deal shortly with a number of specific points put forward by the hon. Members for Walton and Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann). Clause 148 makes it perfectly plain that a union that is not independent cannot make use of the statutory procedure for securing enforced recognition, because a union has to be free from employer domination to make use of such procedure.

[Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Orme: It certainly can be referred. This is crucial. An employer can still refer a union which is not independent to this body which could be used as a delaying tactic. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it was used in the United States over a considerable period of years.

The Solicitor-General: It is true that an employer could refer an issue of recognition for an organisation that is not a registered union. Candidly, the proposal was not designed in any sense to achieve that, but to recognise that in many industrial situations there could be organisations at work on the ground, at the grass roots, whose case deserved to be looked


at even though they might not have achieved registration. But if hon. Members opposite are saying that the C.I.R. is likely to recommend recognition through this machinery of a house union, it is important to remember that the Commission in paragraph 33 of its First General Report stressed the importance of granting recognition to a union
that truly represents the interests of the employees".
It goes on to say,
the union should be effectively independent of management and able to give the strength of organisational backing to the representatives who deal with management".
It is clear that the legislation is intended to militate against the recognition of house unions. It is also clear that if what is known as a "sweetheart deal" were to be arrived at, a cosy get together between an employer and a house union, Clause 48 provides for the possibility of withdrawal of recognition from that house union. It provides a minority of employees with the opportunity to achieve this. It strikes me as a little inconsistent —although I understand each of the arguments separately—for the hon. Member for Kensington, North to say that we are in danger of excluding the aggressive unions which should be representing people rather than the house union, when in days past it was said that we were providing a Toughs' Charter whereby militant aggressive characters would disturb responsible unions which had been recognised. Not both arguments can be valid.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: One can have both situations in different circumstances. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman can accept that. A provision which could inhibit a house union being appointed certainly would not prevent from being appointed a union which has been "sweetened" by a provision for its own members.

The Solicitor-General: But certainly it can then be challenged. I suggest that Clause 48 provides a way of doing so. Certainly this part of the Bill is not intended to be, nor is it likely to be, a foundation for the over-easy recognition of house unions in that kind of way.
I return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell). He argued that there

are employers from whom a union will want to claim recognition and that they ought to have simple machinery to that end. That is certainly something, as several hon. Members have said, for which we proposed machinery in "Fair Deal at Work", so that a union seeking recognition should be able to achieve it.
I do not want to trespass further than my hon. Friends would allow beyond the Rules of Order, but, when we come to it, perhaps I can explain how Clause 42 will provide a way in which a union could achieve that. But my hon. Friend makes a point of some force when he says that it should be possible to devise a way whereby a union simply seeking recognition as a single union against a single employer could perhaps get the right to a ballot more easily. But one still has here the residual questions, in respect of which employees is the union to claim that right, among which employees is a ballot to be held? There is always likely to be a question whether a ballot is to include the maintenance as well as the service staff, for example. But certainly we sympathise with his approach and are always willing to make sure that we have done all that we can to see whether we have achieved it.
On that point, may I close by pointing out that we have here new machinery that is put forward to solve, we believe in the best way, a variety of problems which those on both sides of the Committee will recognise exist in this country. It is on that basis that I commend it to the Committee. It is designed to remove the causes of strife between unions, and between a union and an employer in the recognition situation, and I suggest that it deserves the support of the Committee.

Mr. Orme: I return to the point with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just been dealing, when he quoted from paragraph 60 of "In Place of Strife", dealing with demarcation disputes. May I put it to him that he was talking about disputes which arise between unions having demarcation problems arising out of the nature of the work they carry out. I ask him, what has this to do with the appointment of a sole negotiating agent in this context of Clause 42?
Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not demarcation disputes


between unions with which we shall be dealing, but something quite different? I think it is fair to say that as a result of the work of the T.U.C. and its disputes committee demarcation disputes no longer arise. I should like any hon. Gentleman to give me recent examples of disputes similar to those which used to occur in the shipbuilding industry, the construction industry and the engineering industry. Where are the demarcation disputes about which the right hon. Gentleman was talking taking place?
What about the disputes that will arise because of the sole bargaining agent? What the right hon. Gentleman is aiming to achieve by this and subsequent Clauses is one bargaining agent within one plant. My hon. Friend raised the issue of there being a 60-to-40 proportion between two unions. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have strong feelings about professional organisations being trapped by these Clauses. Let us consider the situation which would arise if the A.S.T.M.S. and the A.U.E.F.W. were in one plant, and the question at issue was which union should be the sole bargaining unit. The Solicitor-General owes it to the Committee to explain what paragraphs (a) and (c) mean.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about a sole bargaining agent, but the Clause talks about joint negotiating rights within a plant while there is still a sole bargaining agent. Will the Solicitor-General explain this now, or does he propose to wait until we get to some of the later Clauses to tell us how this will work? Will a works committee be an appropriate body to be the sole negotiating agent within a plant where there are a number of unions representing different trades? Who will negotiate for the foundry shop, or the machine shop? Different unions could be involved. Will the works committee be a valid negotiating unit, and the sole negotiating unit, or will attempts be made to try to create a one-union situation in the plant?
If there is industrial trouble now, goodness knows what will happen if we try to remove established trade unions of many years' standing, unions which go back to the beginning of the industrial history of this country. It just cannot be done. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he can wipe out these unions, I remind him of the difficulties created in the United States when the sole bar-

gaining agent and the agency shop were created. American unions are based on more industrial lines than those in Britain, and no not have the historical background of the British trade union movement. There was tremendous difficulty when the change to which I have referred was brought in, and the Solicitor-General was less than honest when he talked about the 1947 Taft Hartley Act assisting in that situation.
The Solictor-General did not tell the Committee that after the system had been operating for some time, and it looked as though it was coming down in favour of the militant unions, amendments were moved and approved in Congress to remove the advantages which the militant unions were gaining. Nor did the Solicitor-General give us the case histories of the number of employers in the United States who took steps to clog the machinery and stop the recognition of established unions.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) talked about unions being quickly and easily able to establish recognition, without having to go through all this machinery. On top of the agency shop, this provision will make workshop organisation and negotiation a legal nightmare. I do not think the Secretary of State appreciates what the duplication of these different provisions will mean, with a 20 per cent. vote applicable in one instance, 51 per cent. in another, a two-thirds vote in another, and a majority being necessary in yet another, without stating what the majority ought to be. All this is stipulated in the Bill time and again and I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this will create an absolute morass of problems, which will not easily be resolved.
I come now to discuss the Bridlington Agreement. When the right hon. Gentleman was in opposition we used to hear him talking about wanting stronger unions, fewer unions and proper agreements. The Bill and these proposals are running counter to those ideas, because the T.U.C.'s standing will be destroyed if this Measure goes through. The Bridlington Agreement will not be worth the paper that it is written on. How can the T.U.C. come in to mediate and use its good offices in an industry about which it knows something when it will have


High Court judges handing down judgments, with the power of legal enforceability to the unions concerned? With the best will in the world the T.U.C. will not be able to operate the Bridlington Agreement, and I think that this provision will make nonsense of the whole situation.

Mr. David Mitchell: Is it not correct that under the Bill it will be possible for unions to make a binding agreement between themselves about how they will resolve demarcation disputes?

Mr. Orme: They are now making binding agreements which do not need legal underwriting. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to give me instances of current demarcation disputes which are wrecking British industry. All that I am asking for are examples of such disputes. The answer is that they cannot give them, for the simple reason that the number of these disputes has been reduced, because the T.U.C. has operated efficiently, and because amalgamations have taken place in certain shipbuilding and attendant industries. Such disputes no longer arise, because trade unionists in Barrow, Glasgow and elsewhere have become convinced of the wastefulness of such strikes. The difficulties have been removed by the unions under their own constitutions, and under the guidance of the T.U.C., which has handed down decisions to the unions. These decisions have not always been popular, and the unions have not always accepted them in the form in which they have been handed down, but, because of their loyalty they have, in the final analysis, carried them out. Trade unionists understand the problem, and it goes to show that trade unions can deal with demarcation problems.
The Clause has nothing to do with demarcation problems. It has to do with conflicts arising out of implementation of the Clause and its attendant Clauses. We shall come to some of the details later, but it is a bit odd that here again we have stuck in at the beginning of an important part of the Bill what is meant to be a definition Clause. It has nothing to do with the legal aspects of Clauses 42 to 49, and we have had no definition from the Government of what is meant. They have not defined paragraphs (a) and

(c). They have not explained the principles, or tried to see how the principles set out in the Clause will work. What we get in subsequent Clauses is how the law will be applied, and how it will be imposed. We have not had the overall picture. The Solicitor-General tried to make some point about new Clause 15. The policies and alternatives which we on this side have advocated in opposing the Bill are based on a voluntary system. I hope that on subsequent Clauses we shall be able to show the Secretary of State just how impossible these Clauses are and how heavily weighted they are against trade unions.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: The Government Front Bench rarely gives us practical examples. In view of Britain's long history of industrial relations I should have thought that the Government could use practical examples to illustrate how the Bill will work.
I wish to refer to a practical example in my endeavour to find out how the Bill will operate. In the dustmen's strike last October the national negotiating procedure began to crumble after a while. When the joint body negotiating on behalf of all municipal employers was holding out for granting an increase of only 35s., the Labour-controlled Sheffield City Council, off its own bat, met the demand of 55s. in full.
This action was bitterly criticised by the Conservatives on the council, who said that as employers the Sheffield City Council was breaking the agreement that the other employers were sticking to, that the negotiations should be national, and that the Sheffield City Council had no right to become the sole bargaining unit at a local level. The Conservative councillors said that the matter should be reported and that Sheffield councillors were liable to be surcharged. Legal advice was taken.
Many Labour councils refrained from making separate settlements with their employees and getting the men back to work because they were advised by their town clerks or other officers that the councillors would be liable to surcharge. Many councils wished to settle on a local basis rather than wait for the mass of local authorities to move to get the dustbins emptied.


In a case such as that a local opposition could have a field day by making use of the Clause. It could be said, "We as Conservative councillors in a minority are also part of the bargaining unit. We as Conservative councillors have some rights, because we are members of the council. We as a minority opposition are part of the bargaining unit". They could apply to the Court, because in effect there would be a split in the employers' front. One part of the council could say, "We do not agree; and we, as a minority group on the council, have negotiating rights". They could try to stop the majority party on the council from paying the increase. They could take the matter to the Industrial Court, because the law is not clear.
We shall get into an impossible position if local politics are allowed to bedevil a pay claim. Local councils form together the biggest employers in the country. They make I.C.I. look like chicken feed as regards the number of people they employ, the number of rises negotiated, the number of joint negotiating panels, and so on.
Once it is possible for the law to step in to settle any disputes, it immediately becomes tempting for local minority groups to throw a spanner in the works; on the one side it could be politicians and on the other it could be local unions trying to take part in negotiations.
As an example, the ambulance men are trying to establish their own union. In some areas local ambulance men have said, "We demand sole negotiating rights. We are no longer interested in belonging to the Confederation of Health Service Employees". So a dispute could be created by means of this tactic.
I hope that when he replies the Secretary of State will give us examples of how the Bill would have applied in the local authority dispute, which was conducted under existing procedures. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that once the law is invoked in these matters any small point of dispute could cause havoc.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The Bill has been left behind by the course of events. On an earlier Clause I argued that, although hon. Members opposite never tire of talking about how the Labour Government ran away from their own legislation at Downing Street one

morning, the Labour Government made an enormous advance in the sense that the trade unions—the constituent members of the T.U.C.—for the first time gave the General Council remarkable sovereign powers over the constituent bodies.
I, too, remember the demarcation dispute which caused my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) to include a provision about demarcation in her projected legislation. At that time there were fears of a dispute in the steel industry because of the differences between A.S.S.E.T. and B.I.S.A.K.T.A. While Clive Jenkins and Mr. Dai Davies were making all kinds of pugilistic noises, the Labour Government were concerned about what could have become a very crippling strike. We therefore decided that it would be advisable for us to do what we could to influence the trade unions to accept a decision from the General Council of the T.U.C.
The T.U.C. intervened and made a decision which was not popular with everybody. In such a situation its decision could not be popular with everybody. However, the T.U.C. made a decision which was acceptable to both unions and a dispute in the steel industry was avoided. Since then there has been no demarcation dispute in the steel industry or anywhere else to my knowledge. The unions have given the T.U.C. powers to intervene in such disputes, powers which are far and away more effective than anything that can appear in the Bill.
As the Committee knows, I differ in some ways from many of my hon. Friends on the question of legislation. However, I do not believe that in the matter covered by the Clause legislation can ever do anything. To use a word well known in the North, nous is the dominating factor in this matter. It is tempting for the biggest single union to demand sole bargaining rights. If the criterion is to be that there should be a sole bargaining unit, one can visualise a whole area of disputes resulting from the acceptance of that one union. At one time I was the convener of the biggest single union in a great plant. If I had tried to run that plant purely on the basis of the A.E.U. I would have had disputes every day. It is in this connection that the works committee procedure must obtain


and we must ensure that there is proper and adequate representation of the shop stewards of every union. They may not be able to justify a place on the works committee, but when matters of vital importance to their union are discussed they should be brought into the deliberations of the works committee subcommittee.
Huge plants can be brought to a standstill by 20 or 30 men. How can we possibly determine sole bargaining agencies purely on the basis of numbers? The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that if 30 fitters among many thousands of people on the assembly line of a car factory or aircraft factory decided that they had a grievance and stopped work the assembly line would come to a halt within hours. I do not say whether I am happy about that situation or not. All that I am pointing out is that it is a fact. Suppose that those 30 people are members of one trade union which has not been given recognition in the sense of being a bargaining agent. How can we expect them to forget their problems merely because their union is not the bargaining agency, although if they insist upon that which they feel is necessary in their conditions of employment they know that the whole factory will be brought to a stop?
I have had some experience in these matters and I do not pretend to be unusual in that respect, but I could run a coach and horses through Clause 41 at any time if I were the shop steward of a union which had not been given bargaining rights.
In many great factories there are two works committees—one for the manual workers and one for the staffs. Which will be accepted as the sole bargaining agent? The right hon. Gentleman will agree that the agreements of the staff unions can be completely different from the agreements of the manual unions. Is it to be said, "We are very sorry, but until a new arrangement has been made to bring the two committees together, and until they unify their procedures and the staff unions make the same agreements as the manual unions, or vice versa, one of them will not be able to function as a bargaining agent"?
I can think of no way of making Clause 41 effective. I can see many ways

in which attempts to apply it are bound to cause disruption in factories where there is no disruption at present. The Clause is another illustration that the Bill is bound to create much more disagreement, although I give the Government credit for their attempts to eliminate areas of disagreement. No hon. Member can argue that there is now need for legislation to deal with demarcation disputes. The Bill is silly and stupid and is more likely to cause demarcation disputes than cure them.
My hon. Friends have won the arguments to which I have listened. The Secretary of State has not made any concessions. We have had no indication from him that, because of the arguments which have been deployed, to which neither he nor the Solicitor-General has given an adequate answer, he will be willing to consider the matter again. On the question of demarcation, the Secretary of State is barking up the wrong tree. The provisions of Clause 41 cannot be made operative in any industry of which I know and they are far more likely to cause trouble than prevent it.
I therefore suggest that the Secretary of State tells us that he is willing to look at the Clause again and to try to incorporate some of the suggestions made by the Opposition and bring forward suitable Amendments on Report.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: I intervene briefly to make four points.
First, I agree with the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) that this is a complicated Bill. The most misleading of the many misleading statements in the T.U.C. national advertising campaign was the assertion that it is easy to stop strikes. I do not believe that there is anything easy about it, and therefore this is a complicated Bill. I hope that when the Bill becomes law the Government will ensure that simple booklets and pamphlets are available on factory shop floors for those involved in the day-to-day running of industrial relations. I realise that that cannot be done while the Bill is still a Bill, but I believe that it will be absolutely essential once it is on the Statute Book.
Secondly, the new Clause and the Government's general provisions demonstrate a clear division between the two


sides of the Committee. On the one side there is the Government's proposal that the law should set the framework for industrial relations, and, on the other side, there is the view that the Secretary of State should be involved in making orders. This is indicative of two completely different attitudes.
Thirdly, I do not think democracy has very much to do with the matter. During the debate on "In Place of Strife" the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) declaimed about parliamentary democracy. She said:
Parliamentary democracy would be empty and meaningless unless it were underpinned by democratic institutions in the industrial field …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 43.]
Under the Government's proposals there could be no order of the court in a recognition dispute unless there had been a ballot of the work people. Under new Clause 15 there could be, and the Secretary of State could make an order even if there had not been a ballot of the work people. I leave it to the Committee to judge which is the more democratic approach.
Fourthly, the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) said that we do not need legislation for demarcation disputes. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) referred to the ambulance drivers dispute. Who is to say that industrial action might not flow from that dispute? Who, looking at the aggressive development—I do not complain about it—of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs and its possible future growth can say that it will not lead to recognition disputes and probably industrial action?

Mr. Ashton: The hon. Gentleman is confusing a demarcation dispute with a recognition dispute. The ambulance men do not dispute who is to drive the ambulance. They are simply disputing which union shall represent them.

Mr. Scott: There may well be recognition disputes about A.S.T.M.S. As that union widens its scope it will come into dispute with other unions, which may lead to industrial action. It is right that there should be provision in the law for resolving such disputes.
In "In Place of Strife" the two problems of the recalcitrant employer and com-

petition between two unions were recognised as equal problems which had to be solved by legislation. New Clause No. 15 says that only one problem—that of the recalcitrant employer—needs to be dealt with. It is for the Committee to decide whether that switch in emphasis from "In Place of Strife" to new Clause 15 is in the interests of good, orderly industrial relations or whether it is in the interests of unity within the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Mr. McNamara: The Solicitor-General and the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) have confused the whole issue of the Bridlington Agreement. They have confused three separate matters—the demarcation dispute, the recognition dispute and the inter-union rivalry dispute for the recruitment of members.
As my hon. Friends have indicated—and no one has yet challenged us—there has been no major demarcation dispute in this country for a long time. On recognition by recalcitrant employers, there has rarely been any need generally for a union to seek the aid of the State for recognition in this sphere. On the question of poaching between unions, the Bridlington Agreement, the T.U.C.'s example of what happened with N.A.S.D.U. has been a strong and effective weapon agreed voluntarily between the unions to prevent that sort of dispute arising.
The hon. Member for Paddington, South said that we could not explain the Bill to people on the shop floor because it is not yet passed. But we are to have some little booklets, and then they will understand what a Bill of 139 pages, with 150 Clauses and eight Schedules is all about. The booklets will explain to the lads on the shop floor what irregular industrial action is. We are to say, "Do not stop the job for a minute. Let is go through, and when you have finished you can have the dispute, and you have not broken the law on this occasion." That is the sort of situation which will be created.
We shall hedge around the people who administer the aspirin on the shop floor to prevent major surgery later, if the type of proposal which the hon. Member for Paddington, South has been discussing comes into operation. It will make


shop stewards or union officials so hedged around by legislation that they will take no action for the benefit of their members because they are afraid of the consequences, until we have a whole lot of precedents to enable them to know what they can or cannot do. They may say, "To hell with all that. This is what I want to see happen, and this is what I am going to do." That will bring the whole fabric of law into disrepute, which will be bad for society as a whole. That is why we are against the Bill and the definition which exists here.
In his opening speech my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) suggested that we reject the Clause. He mentioned the important statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in the other place on the situation with regard to professional organisations or unions, call them what one will.
What will a bargaining unit mean? If a certain group of people, because of the concession made, are to be omitted, are we saying that we now have two standards of law, one for people with a professional qualification, with letters after their name and perhaps a university degree, and one for people who belong to a manual union or a skilled union, who do not have the same sort of professional qualifications although their organisations in essence, are no different from the A.E.F. or T.G.W.U.? These people have as much pride as professionals—those who regard themselves as professional workers.
Those who listened to the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), who spoke about loyalty, devotion and professionalism within their own trade union, and what holding their union card meant to them, could not fail to see that the unions have just as much right to recognition and acceptance as has any other professional organisation. Therefore, we are entitled to ask the Secretary of State to give far more information about what he means by a register for professional organisations.
Paragraph (c) of this Clause states:
'sole bargaining agent' in relation to a bargaining unit, means the organisation of workers…

This is another anomaly created in the Bill. We are told that it means "an organisation of workers." But if one turns to the definition Clause, one is referred back from that to Clause 57, where one has the whole string of definitions of organisations of workers which may or may not be a trade union for the purposes of the Bill. If it is not a trade union, as defined by the Bill, then none of the safeguards for a registered trade union which are contained in the Bill applies to an organisation of workers which has failed to register, or which, once having had its name put upon the provisional register, does not allow any sort of claim to go forward on its behalf, and therefore lapses.
We shall be in a situation in which we could have recognised as the sole bargaining agent an organisation of workers negotiating on behalf of its membership who will, if they take the limited right to strike action, which they have under the Bill, lose all the protection given to a registered trade union—which is not much. They will lose all that, but they will be recognised as sole bargaining agents under the provision of the Clause.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. We should have more explanation from the Secretary of State on exactly what he means in terms of professional associations and the concessions he has made, and in terms of organisations of workers and the effects of this definition. Perhaps we may also have a recognition and realisation from the Conservative Party of the work which has been done by the T.U.C. under the Bridlington Agreement.
Under the provisions of the Bill, if we had a new organisation of workers which was not a member of the T.U.C. but recognised under the Act as a trade union, and it wanted to behave like a rogue elephant throughout industry, it could create chaos unimagined in the House. We cannot have it.

Mr. James Lamond: Listening to the Debate for the number of days which I have, it has become rather frightening to realise that this legislation has been prepared by well meaning people who unfortunately base their experience, I imagine, entirely upon matters such as letters to the Press about trade unionists and their activities and on an out-dated notion of what trade unions'


difficulties are at present. For example, we have been discussing two quite different aspects of trade unionism today: demarcation disputes and organisation disputes.
For a long time I worked in a shipyard. As hon. Members know, for many years our shipyards were a hot-bed of demarcation disputes. That was only to be expected when one remembers that there were at least 39 unions in the Confederation of Engineering and Shipbuilding Unions at one time.
One must appreciate the reason behind demarcation disputes. In a minor capacity, I have been called upon from time to time to judge which side in a demarcation dispute was right, and nothing educates one more than to listen to the two sides of such a case.
In our shipyards, the chief reason behind many demarcation disputes was the simple fact of progress. After the last war, the techniques of building ships changed very rapidly. When I first started in the industry in 1944, a large part of the work was carried out by riveters. By the time that I had finished my apprenticeship, welders had come into the industry in greater numbers and taken over the work previously done by riveters, caulkers and others in the "black squad". Many men had served five-year apprenticeships, and they felt that their trades were slipping away from them. Anyone can appreciate the feelings of a man who realises that his training will be of no use to him in the future, and it is not surprising that he fights hard to retain as much work for his own trade as he can. Any tradesman or professional man would do the same.
We in the trade union movement made it clear to men in this position that retraining programmes were available and that there would be no attempt to put them out of work and on the scrap heap at an early age. I do not believe that any law could have done what was achieved over the years by argument and persuasion. Laws do not remove from the minds and hearts of men the fear that what they produce and sell to keep themselves in a living is no longer required.
That was the reason behind many past demarcation disputes. In the shipyard of which I am most intimately knowledgeable, there has not been a demarcation dispute for seven years,

since 1964, and there is no indication that there will be any in the future. That situation has been brought about by the trade union movement. Therefore, there is no necessity now to introduce legislation which is designed to help prevent demarcation disputes.
When we come to look at disputes about which unions will organise certain groups of workers, we are concerned with a problem which is present today, particularly among those known as "white collar" workers, of whom my own union, the Draughtsmen and Allied Technicians' Association, organises quite a number.
I will not attempt to deny that my union has been in dispute with certain other unions. Trade unions are in a fairly competitive world, and the possible areas for the expansion of their activities lie among the ever-increasing numbers of technical workers in industry. Behind that simple fact is the reason for a number of moves towards amalgamation between my union and the A.U.E.F.W. since the A.U.E.F.W. recognises the recruitment possibilities in the future among these workers.
Inevitably, there will be disputes among unions about which of them is entitled to organise various groups of workers. But, just as the trade union movement solved the problem of demarcation disputes, so it has the capability of eradicating this second type of dispute in the long run.
If anything, the chances of the T.U.C. doing this have been greatly strengthened by the fact that it has been able to assume more power than it had before as a result of the proposition of the Labour Party some time ago concerning legislation for the trade union movement. The T.U.C. and the trade union movement took a gigantic step forward as a result of the pressure put upon them by the Labour Party, and they have now got the powers which will enable them to solve any dispute about organisation without the necessity of the law intervening, which in my opinion would have been as ineffective there as it would be in settling demarcation disputes.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General dealt adequately and well with the general principles of the Clause, and I will not repeat


what he said. I shall deal mainly with the points which have been raised since he made his intervention.
However, before doing that I should remind the Committee that here we are dealing with machinery of last and not first resort. We are not putting forward machinery to supplant all the voluntary machinery which operates, should operate and will be encouraged to operate in the future. We are providing a net to catch those cases which prove so stubborn and difficult that the voluntary machinery fails. They are not many but, when failures occur, usually they are very serious and very complicated. Perhaps it is not altogether surprising that complicated machinery is required to deal with them.
We want to make sure that the machinery of last resort is constitutional rather than strike machinery. Both sides of the Committee agree that in the 1970s and onwards we ought to make available to the parties machinery for resolving disputes about recognition and bargaining rights, rather than, when all normal negotiating and voluntary procedures fail, leaving matters to be fought out by the crude weapon of strike action. That is in the interests of the community at large and of the unions and workers concerned.
However, it is only a last resort and an alternative to strike action. It is undeniable that some of these cases exist. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that there were none of these cases nowadays and that no one can remember a great recognition dispute which had caused trouble in recent years. However, the dispute of the white collar workers in the steel industry was very troublesome for a long time. There was the Johnson Matthey case, where the A.U.E.F.W. and A.S.T.M.S. were in dispute. There was the ambulance drivers' dispute—

Mr. Frederick Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was the intervention of the T.U.C. and acceptance by both sides of the T.U.C.'s decision which settled it?

Mr. Carr: Yes, I agree. Associated Octel was another case recently. In all of the four cases that I have quoted, A.S.T.M.S. has been involved. That is

no criticism of A.S.T.M.S., but it reinforces the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) that in this new expansionary drive of trade unionism among white collar workers, where there is room for expansion and where it will undoubtedly take place, there is the likelihood of more union clashes and conflicts in the future than there have been in the recent past. Therefore, it is all the more necessary to have some machinery available, not to take the place of the T.U.C. and all the voluntary machinery that we have, but to provide a means of catching up with the minority cases which the normal voluntary processes have failed to solve.

Mr. McNamara: I think that the right hon. Gentleman made a slip of the tongue, because he said "demarcation" when he really meant "recognition".
I do not deny that there is competition. The machinery within the T.U.C., by virtue of the Bridlington Agreement, is being used effectively. It was this machinery which settled the steel dispute, not the Pearson Inquiry or anything else.

Mr. Carr: I agree. This machinery should operate. We must also remember that not all unions, including well-established unions which hon. Members opposite regard as highly respectable, are affiliated to the T.U.C. There are some areas where, for various reasons, some unions are not affiliated to the T.U.C.

An Hon. Member: Not many.

Mr. Carr: Not many, but some. So there must be some machinery for those cases.
There are also cases of employers who are not, either directly or indirectly through some subsidiary association, members of the C.B.I. Therefore, we cannot depend entirely on machinery which can only be operated when the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. are involved, because on both sides of industry there are employers and unions—they may be a minority, but they are there—who are not affiliated to the T.U.C. or the C.B.I.

Mr. Orme: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned, in connection with recognition as opposed to demarcation disputes, Johnson Matthey in which the A.U.E.F.W. and the A.S.T.M.S. were


involved. That is quite right. But there are so few of these cases that the exception is proving the rule. There is bound to be conflict. However, we say that such conflicts will not be resolved by this complicated legal structure.

Mr. Carr: We believe that there must be machinery to pick up the minority of cases which fail to be resolved. It is quite wrong to suggest that the machinery which we propose will in any way prevent the T.U.C. continuing to operate the Bridlington Agreement. Unions will continue to be free to operate agreements limiting their freedom to recruit each other's members. I hope that they will continue doing so. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent them.
Clause 43, to which I may refer only briefly in passing, provides that a recognition dispute is not to be referred or dealt with by the C.I.R. until the parties have endeavoured to settle it themselves. Therefore, the C.I.R. cannot come barging in. This machinery cannot interfere. The Bill specifically provides that the machinery cannot be brought in until the parties have endeavoured to settle the dispute themselves.
I underline again that we are not in any way replacing what is already there. Our proposal is the net to catch the few cases which fall through the normal procedure, which, almost by definition, are likely to be of a particularly difficult and stubborn nature. Therefore, we need this machinery. I do not believe that that is a matter of dispute between the two sides. The Opposition's case is not that there should be no machinery, but that there should be different machinery —hence new Clause 15. The Committee must decide whether the Government's proposed machinery is better than that proposed in new Clause 15.
I wish to comment briefly on new Clause 15, but only on one or two matters of principle.
First, new Clause 15 deals only with the recalcitrant employer. It is necessary that there should be machinery for that. But, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) recognised in "In Place of Strife", however different her proposal for dealing with it may be, there is also the possibility of the recalcitrant union not being prepared to accept recommendations or to abide by voluntary

agreements. The right hon. Lady will remember that this was one of the difficulties in dealing with the dispute about the white collar workers in the steel industry where a committee of inquiry made certain recommendations which were acceptable to certain people but not to all. So the right hon. Lady had to go back on that and start again.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

7.15 p.m.

There is a potential problem in the rare case of the recalcitrant union as well as the rare case of the recalcitrant employer. Therefore, any machinery which we have must deal with both. My first argument for rejecting the machinery of new Clause 15 is that it deals only with the recalcitrant employer; it does not deal also with the recalcitrant union.

Another criticism of the new Clause 15 machinery compared with the machinery which we propose is that it all hinges on the initiative of the Secretary of State. New Clause 15 begins,
Where it appears to the Secretary at State".
For anything to happen at all it has to appear necessary to the Secretary of State to set everything going. We say that it can appear to the Secretary of State and he can start it, but it can also appear to the employer and to the union and they should be able to start it. It is important that the Secretary of State, the union and the employer are each able to start the machinery working in a stubborn case. Therefore, the second reason for inviting the Committee to reject the new Clause 15 alternative is that it leaves the right to start the machinery only in the hands of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman is leaving out a very important part of new Clause 15, which, quite rightly, says:
Where it appears to the Secretary of State that an employer or group of associated employers has not complied with a request for recognition made by or on behalf of one or more trade unions … the Secretary of State may, after complying with subsection (3), refer that request to the Commission".
Subsection (3) says:
Before referring any request to the Commission under this section, the Secretary of State shall give notice of the proposal—

(a) to the employer …


(b) to the General Council and the Confederation".

In other words, before the Secretary of State gets to the stage of making orders, a long process has to be gone through.

Mr. Carr: I accept all that. But it is up to the Secretary of State to act or not to act in the end.
The right hon. Member for Blackburn will no doubt be aware that she had in front of her as I have in front of me, requests, for example, to make references to the C.I.R. in some cases where employers are anxious that we should do it and in other cases where unions are anxious that we should do it. In those cases we have to consult, and all the rest. I do not complain about that. But we believe that if a Minister appears to be rather blind in letting something appear to him, the parties, if they feel strongly, should themselves have the right to activate the machinery. We believe that not only in this area, but in various other areas of the Bill, it is right that the parties, as well as the Secretary of State, should have the right to activate the machinery.
The third point on which I take issue with new Clause 15 is the false claim which it puts forward that somehow our procedure violates the voluntary principle and that the new Clause supports it. That is nonsense. New Clause 15 in the end depends on an order by the Secretary of State. How is an order by the Secretary of State voluntary? It is not. The Secretary of State in making such an order if this machinery were adopted, would be recognising the unfortunate necessity of dealing with certain cases where, despite all efforts, the voluntary machinery had failed. Such cases are rare and regrettable, but the machinery suggested by the Opposition recognises that they exist and that if in the last resort they cannot be resolved on a voluntary basis they must be resolved by some form of order.

Mrs. Castle: I thought that it was common ground between both sides that, in industrial relations, there are certain rights which are in the I.L.O. conventions and which we think should be in the law of the land. One is the right to belong to a union, another is the right of a union, where it is clearly representa-

tive or is judged to be so, to be recognised and negotiated with by an employer. We accept those as being part of a voluntary system of collective bargaining. But that is very different from having, by law, the choice imposed between different parties where there is a voluntary machinery like the T.U.C. doing that adjudicating between one union and another.

Mr. Carr: I am saying that, when we reach the end of our process, whether it be the process which I advocate or the process which the right hon. Lady advocates, in the last resort, force—I use that word in the limited sense which we understand—is involved. The argument between us is whether that compulsion is by the order of the Secretary of State or by order of the Court. In our system, it is by order of the court; under the right hon. Lady's system, it is by order of the Secretary of State.
I ask the Committee to judge which is more accountable. So far as I know, the sort of orders which the Opposition are putting forward and which the right hon. Lady put forward in her Bill, which was published last April but not debated, are not debatable in this House. Therefore, which gives more satisfaction to the parties? Under our procedure, the order is made by the court, and before the court makes the order, all parties involved can go before the court and state their case, to be taken into account before the court decides whether or not to make the order.
Which is more democratic? Which gives more right to the parties to have their points of view taken into account—the chance to go before the National industrial Relations Court, including not only a judge but two people sophisticated and knowledgeable and experienced in the ways of industry, and to have their case stated, or an order by the Secretary of State which is not even debatable?

Mr. Orme: We are dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. How accountable to this House is the court which he is setting up? It is not accountable at all. A High Court judge will hand down judgments to trade unionists when he has no knowledge of the working conditions or anything else.

Mr. Carr: It will not be handed down by a High Court judge with no knowledge of working conditions, because the


whole basis of our system involves the establishment of specialised courts which, in addition to a lawyer, shall include two people of industrial sophistication, knowledge or experience. So the judgment will be given only by these people—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member and others like him refuse to take their opportunity to involve themselves in this sort of decision, it is their fault and no one else's; they had better realise it, as their members will realise it too.
The idea that nothing is democratic or satisfactory unless it is accountable or arguable in this House is a fiction. This country depends—the whole constitution and the whole way of life is based—on the concept of freedom under the law. Parliament also criticises the executive, but—I repeat—the sort of order which the right hon. Lady envisages is not even debatable in the House. If she had her way, all we could do is ask the right hon. Lady a question at Question Time.
I do not believe that that is in any way equivalent, in the satisfaction of the parties involved, to being able to go before a sophisticated and knowledgeable court to state their respective cases before the Order is made. So for that reason, we reject this machinery.
In answer to fears expressed by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and one or two others who asked, "What will these units be and what will the bargaining agents be?", I would say that both the units and the agents will be on the recommendation of the C.I.R., which is also a highly sophisticated industrial body. It will not come in at all if the parties have agreed among themselves. This is only a reserve power to deal with the cases which fail to be resolved by normal voluntary methods. When they have to be, the unit will be defined by the C.I.R., as will the bargaining agent—not by the court or the Secretary of State, but on the recommendation of the C.I.R., supported, or thrown out, by a ballot of all those involved.
The hon. Member for Salford, West was concerned about what would happen in a multi-union situation, with a number of unions entrenched by long history and practice in a particular works or industry. We realise that, and that is precisely why we have not copied the United States law. We are always being accused of copying the United States, but

we have not done so here, precisely because we realise that the situation here is quite different. This is why we are not insistent that the sole bargaining agent must be a single unit.
This is why we are saying that the sole bargaining agent can be a joint panel, such joint panel as the C.I.R., with all its knowledge and sophistication, after full inquiry, shall decide as appropriate and shall recommend. So there will be no question of someone forcing through one union on a narrow majority and telling others to clear off to the courts.

Mr. Heffer: Would the Secretary of State clarify one point? He said earlier that the C.I.R., not the courts, would determine, as it were, "constituencies" and boundaries and descriptions of workers. Can he explain Clause 43(3) which says that where the Industrial Court refers a question to the Commission,
… the reference shall specify both the question to be determined by the Commission and the employer or employers, and the employees or descriptions of employees, in relation to whom it is to be determined.
The way I read that—I may be wrong: I am not a lawyer, although I understand that legal opinion agrees with me—is that the court will very much determine constituencies and boundaries and descriptions of workers. Let us have it spelled out.

Mr. Carr: We can discuss this when we reach that point, but I can assure the Committee that that is not so. But we must, when referring something to the C.I.R., define what we are referring. That happens in Secretary of State references at the moment. In this case, as the reference would have come through the court, the court must define the reference, but some other Clause—the precise number escapes me at the moment—specifically allows the C.I.R. to find on inquiry that it is dissatisfied, and, if it thinks that it is being confined, to be able to apply for the reference to be extended.
I am sorry that I cannot, on my feet, direct the hon. Member to the particular Clause and subsection where that happens, but I assure him that Clause 43(3) is no more than an official definition of a reference. If the C.I.R. finds this too restricting or wrong, it can change it. If the Committee is not satisfied about that, let me be clear about the intention and


say straight away that, if the Committee feels that the words do not make that intention clear, one one will be more happy than I to make it clear.

Mr. Orme: The right hon. Gentleman says that collective unions within a plant will be able to negotiate jointly, but of course, as my hon. Friend has just said about Clause 43(3), this means that some outside body will, at some ultimate date, decide whether a certain union is included —so the freedom is not there, as it is at the moment, for a collective works committee to be appointed.

Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. He will keep thinking that this is a new machinery that we are imposing on everyone ab initio. It will come into play only when all the normal voluntary processes have been at work and have failed. It will not come in unless all the voluntary processes that the hon. Gentleman mentioned have been tried and have, unfortunately, failed.
We are dealing here only with the machinery to pick up the minority of cases where all the normal, traditional, voluntary processes, including those of the T.U.C., the C.B.I. and all the other bodies active in this field, have tried their best and have failed. We believe that there must be some machinery available to deal with such a minority of cases. We commend our machinery to the Committee and ask it to reject that put forward in the new Clause.

[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Harold Walker: The Secretary of State worked up an extraordinary lather about something that only he could read into our new Clause—the unwarranted assumption that the order referred to would not be debatable by the House. It is not the Opposition's task to try to redraft his Bill for him. We have done a very thorough, serious, painstaking job in presenting a viable alternative to his proposal. But he would not expect us to write out all the consequential Amendments.

The Solicitor-General: Where do the Opposition stand on this? The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that new Clause 15 was a

reproduction of the proposals in the right hon. Lady's Bill. I accept that we cannot expect all the consequentials, but Clause 6 of that Bill, of which the new Clause is a compressed edition, made it clear that the order to be made by the Secretary of State for recognition was not to be debatable. It was expressly excluded by a later Clause in that Bill from those which were debatable in the House. In other words, it was not voluntary. It was not even debatable. It was an executive order made by the Secretary of State under Clause 6 of her Bill.

Mr. Walker: I shall refer again to the extraordinary proneness of the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General, in advancing their arguments, to continue to rest on what we did at another time and in different circumstances. It is extraordinary that a Bill which has not been debated in the House, the justification for which circumstances prevented us from presenting from the Government Dispatch Box, should so continually be invoked by the Secretary of State. Perhaps as much as anyone in the House he knows that any decision or action by any Minister is accountable to the House; the Minister must be responsible to the House for it. To that extent the Minister would be answerable to the House for his actions, whatever might be in the Bill and whatever the intentions in our proposed new Clause.
The Secretary of State touched my heart strings when he referred to the British Steel Corporation situation. I was in the Department involved in that at the time. It caused me and my right hon. Friend a great deal of anxiety. In the last resort, that situation was resolved by the unions, when everyone had had a nibble at it and failed. That proves the point that my hon. Friends have been making so persuasively from the back benches. All the unions involved—14 or 16 of them—are opposed to what the right hon. Gentleman is now pressing on the House.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to share the curious idea of his hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) that recognition of a union can be secured on a democratic basis only through the ballot box. We have pressed the Government to give us concrete examples of the situations in which their


proposals would apply. With the single exception of the reference to the British Steel Corporation we have not had any. I will give another example—the situation at B.S.R. at East Kilbride, where a bitter conflict between workers and management was resolved not through the ballot box but by the Commission on Industrial Relations. It did not impose a solution on anyone, but persuaded both employer and workers alike to accept what proved to be the solution.
The right hon. Gentleman said of the proposals in this part of the Bill, echoing what he had said on so many earlier proposals, that he is dealing here with machinery of last resort. That was his phrase. We heard that so many other proposals were for dealing with extreme cases, hard cases. But the right hon. Gentleman has convinced the country that his Bill deals with the generality of cases, that he is legislating for the widespread disorder that he says exists in industrial relations. Now he tells the Committee that proposal after proposal is intended to deal only with the extreme case and last resort issues. Cannot he see that if he provides what my hon. Friend the Member for Walton accurately described as very complex and lengthy procedure to deal with these matters he is providing a very tempting gateway for the recalcitrant employers? My hon. Friend said that there are recognition problems that give rise to disputes and conflicts, and we must recognise this. It is out of such recognition that we have tabled the new Clause.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) is not here. He worked himself up into a hysterical lather the other evening about the alleged destructive rôle of the Opposition Front Bench. We have sought to put before the Committee a very carefully-thoughtout constructive alternative, based on the very lengthy experience that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) had with these matters at the Department of Employment and Productivity and after the fullest consultations with all the parties to whom the proposals would apply.
I return to the right hon. Gentleman's proposals. One thing has puzzled me throughout. Why do we have the Clauses in this part of the Bill dealing with bar-

gaining rights which seem largely to duplicate the agency shop provisions? Unless the right hon. Gentleman is telling the Committee that union recognition is one thing and bargaining rights and recognition of those rights are quite different, we are duplicating what has already been provided. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had explained why he found it necessary to provide these two different parts of the Bill.
We have not yet had a reply to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walton, and pursued by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) about the rumoured proposal that there will be a special, separate register for professional workers. I had not heard of it until this afternoon, but I noticed that hon. Members on the Government back benches were nodding their heads when my hon. Friend referred to it, so it seems that they are somehow privy to information that has not yet been put before the Committee. If so, it is important that the information be provided to us, because it is crucial to the context of the Clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North asked some pertinent questions on this point, which have not yet been answered, revolving around the question of who will be the professional workers eligible for this privileged status. How does one define a professional in this context? Is it someone who has qualifications accorded to him by passing examinations of a learned body? For example, are teachers professionals? They readily assume themselves to be so. These are the sort of things we have had no reply to.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the way in which he has sought to turn the debate into one about interunion disputes. I could not help feeling again that if "In Place of Strife" had never been written, he would have been obliged to invent it in order to provide himself with his stock bolt hole. He must recognise that the Industrial Relations Bill presented to the House by my right hon. Friend before the election differed substantially from "In Place of Strife" in the light of our pursuit of democratic procedures, which contrast very sharply with his own haste with this Bill.


The changes we made arose not only from the very lengthy and detailed consultations we had with the T.U.C. but also, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) said, from the fundamental changes that took place, as a result of those consultations, within the trade union movement and in the relationship between the T.U.C. and its constituent unions. It is time that the Government woke up to what happened during the summer of 1969. Then, for the first time, the affiliated unions to the T.U.C. surrendered part of their sovereignty and gave additional powers to the T.U.C. over a wide range of matters over which hitherto they had proclaimed their autonomy.
It lies ill in the mouth of the Solicitor-General to lecture the Committee about demarcation disputes, particularly in the light of the dispute which recently occurred in another place when his own learned profession insisted on its exclusive right to man the judiciary. It is hardly appropriate for him of all people, as the defender of one of the remaining restrictive practices, to be lecturing us about demarcation disputes.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that the definition of independent unions in Clause 148 safeguards the position about which we expressed so much anxiety—that is, the possible recognition of house unions consequent upon the provisions of Clause 42. I have searched Clauses 41 and 42 in vain so far for the word "independent", and in the absence of that word it is difficult to reconcile what he said with the position in the Bill and to justify his defence of the position against the charges made by my hon. Friends.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) complained bitterly about the inadequate definitions in several subsections of Clause 41. But even more fundamental is the fact that the Bill does not define what is meant by "recognition". This is extremely important. Recognition per se is insufficient. It is not enough for an employer who has refused—[Interruption.] I did not know that the Foreign Secretary was an expert on industrial relations. Perhaps I might return without his assistance to the point. It may not strike him as of

fundamental significance but it is fundamental to ten million workers in industry.
It is not sufficient for an employer, having gone through the drill laid down by the Secretary of State for Employment, to say, "I will concede your right to be a member of a trade union. Now, so what?". It is not sufficient, when a member of a union invokes, as he sees it, his right to have his union negotiate on his behalf, to see that negotiating right rendered nugatory by derisory and ridiculous offers by the employer.
One of the points of principle in new Clause 15 is a recognition that the right to negotiate does not take place in a vacuum. Union recognition does not take place in a vacuum. It arises from concrete issues in negotiations about terms and conditions of employment. If, having secured recognition, the workers in a factory want a substantial wage increase negotiated through their union, it is obvious that, unless "recognition", is carefuly defined, the employer can make it ridiculous by a derisory offer—for example, "Very well. I will fulfil my obligation by offering you one penny an hour".
We therefore deliberately included in new Clause 15 the provision that the order would become an implied term of every contract of employment between employer and employee. This is rather different from what was in my right hon. Friend's Bill because she provided there that the order that would be made by the Secretary of State would be one that would enable the union to proceed unilaterally to arbitration about a particular issue that was to be the subject of negotiations. The decision of the arbitral body would then have become an implied term of contract of employment. It would then, of course, have been pursuable in the courts in the same way as any other part of the contract of employment.
We have exposed not only the weaknesses but also the impracticabilities of the procedure proposed by the right hon. Gentleman—a procedure which we acknowledge tilts at the problem which undeniably exists—and in doing so we have put forward our own positive alternative, albeit modified. Because it was based on the profound understanding and experience of industry of those with whom we had consultations; because it was


based fully on the diagnosis prepared by the Donovan Commission; because it had the backing of the T.U.C., we put our proposal before the Committee as a practical and constructive road ahead in tackling this very difficult problem. That

is why I ask the Committee to vote against Clause 41 and subsequently to vote in favour of new Clause 15.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 303, Noes 251.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42

PROPOSALS FOR RECOGNITION OF SOLE BARGAINING AGENT

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move, Amendment No. 758: In page 30, line 2, leave out 'Industrial Court' and insert 'Commission on Industrial Relations'.
We have already covered the arguments behind this Amendment and in order to make progress I propose that we do not debate it but record our position.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 253, Noes 298.

Division No. 132.]
AYES
[7.48 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Drayson, G. B.
Jessel, Toby


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Dykes, Hugh
Jopling, Michael


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Eden, Sir John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Astor, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Atkins, Humphrey
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine


Awdry, Daniel
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kilfedder, James


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Emery, Peter
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Eyre, Reginald
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Balniel, Lord
Farr, John
Kinsey, J. R


Batsford, Brian
Fell, Anthony
Kirk, Peter


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Kitson, Timothy


Bell, Ronald
Fidler, Michael
Knox, David


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lambton, Antony


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lane, David


Benyon, W.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fookes, Miss Janet
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bitten, John
Fortescue, Tim
Le Marchant, Spencer


Biggs-Davison, John
Foster, Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Blaker, Peter
Fowler, Norman
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fox, Marcus
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langseone)


Body, Richard
Fry, Peter
Longden, Gilbert


Boscawen, Robert
Galbraith, Hn. T. C.
Loveridge, John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gardner, Edward
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bowden, Andrew
Gibson-Watt, David
MacArthur, Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McCrindle, R. A.


Braine, Bernard
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McLaren, Martin


Bray, Ronald
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Brewis, John
Goodhart, Philip
McMaster, Stanley


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Goodhew, Victor
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gower, Raymond
McNair-WEilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maddan, Martin


Bryan, Paul
Gray, Hamish
Madel, David


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Green, Alan
Maginnis, John E.


Buck, Antony
Grieve, Percy
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Bullus, Sir Eric
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Marten, Neil


Burden, F. A.
Grylls, Michael
Mather, Carol


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gummer, Selwyn
Maude, Angus


Campbell, Rt. Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Gurden, Harold
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Carlisle, Mark
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mawby, Ray


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Channon, Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Chapman, Sydney
Hannan, John (Exeter)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Chataway, Rty. Hn. Christopher
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Miscampbell, Norman


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mitchell,Lt.Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Churchill, W. S.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Haselhurst, Alan
Moate, Roger


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hastings, Stephen
Molyneaux, James


Clegg, Walter
Havers, Michael
Money, Ernie


Cockeram, Eric
Hawkins, Paul
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Cooke, Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus


Coombs, Derek
Heseltine, Michael
More, Jasper


Cooper, A. E.
Hicks, Robert
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Cordie, John
Hiley, Joseph
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cormack, Patrick
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Mudd, David


Costain, A. P.
Holland, Philip
Murton, Oscar


Critchley, Julian
Holt, Miss Mary
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Crouch, David
Hooson, Emlyn
Neave, Airey


Crowder, F. P.
Hordern, Peter
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Curran, Charles
Hornby, Richard
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Normanton, Tom


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Nott, John


d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry
Howell, David (Guildford)
Onslow, Cranley


d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Maj-Gen. Jack
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Dean, Paul
Hunt, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Osborn, John


Dixon, Piers
Iremonger, T. L.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
James, David
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)




Pardoe, John
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Peel, John
Scott, Nicholas
Tilney, John


Percival, Ian
Scott-Hopkins, James
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Sharples, Richard
Trew, Peter


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Shaw, Michael (Sc'bgh &amp; Whitby)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Pink, R. Bonner
Shelton, Will:am (Clapham)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Pounder, Rafton
Simeons, Charles
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Skeet, T. H. H.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Price, David (Eastfeigh)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Waddington, David


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Soref, Harold
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Speed, Keith
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Spence, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Sproat, Iain
Wall, Patrick


Raison, Timothy
Stainton, Keith
Walters, Dennis


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Stanhrook, Ivor
Ward, Dame Irene


Redmond, Robert
Steel, David
Warren, Kenneth


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stokes, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wiggin, Jerry


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Sutcliffe, John
Wilkinson, John


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Tapsell, Peter
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Ridsdale, Julian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Woodnutt, Mark


Robert, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Worsley, Marcus


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Younger, Hn. George


Rost, Peter
Tebbit, Norman



Royle, Anthony
Temple, John M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Russell, Sir Ronald
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Mr. Hector Monro and




Mr. Bernard Weatherill.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Horam, John


Albu, Austen
Deakins, Eric
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Allen, Scholefield
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Huckfieid, Leslie


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Dempsey, James
Hughes, Rt. Hn.Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Ashley, Jack
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Ashton, Joe
Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Atkinson, Norman
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hunter, Adam


Barnes, Michael
Driberg, Tom
Irving,Rt.Hn.Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Barnett, Joel
Duffy, A. E. P.
Janner, Greville


Beaney, Alan
Dunnett, Jack
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Eadie, Alex
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'h'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Edelman, Maurice
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bishop, E. S.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
John, Brynmor


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Ellis, Tom
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Booth, Albert
English, Michael
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Evans, Fred
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Bradley, Tom
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Jones,Rt.HnSirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Buchan, Norman
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Judd, Frank


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Foley, Maurice
Kaufman, Gerald


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Foot, Michael
Kelley, Richard


Campbell, I. (Dunhartonshire, W.)
Ford, Ben
Kinnock, Neil


Cant, R. B.
Forrester, John
Lambie, David


Carmichael, Neil
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lamond, James


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Freeson, Reginald
Latham, Arthur


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lawson, George


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Garrett, W. E.
Leadbitter, Ted


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Ginsburg, David
Leonard, Dick


Cohen, Stanley
Gordon, Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lestor, Miss Joan


Coleman, Donald
Gourlay, Harry
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Concannon, J. D.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lewis, Arthur (W, Ham, N.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Crawshaw, Richard




Cronin, John
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lipton, Marcus


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lomas, Kenneth


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Loughlin, Charles


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whltehaven)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Dalyell, Tam
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hardy, Peter
Mabon, Dr. J Dickson


Davidson, Arthu
Harper, Joseph
McBride, Neil


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McCartney, Hugh


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McElhone, Frank


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Heffer, Eric S.
McGuire, Michael


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Hilton, W. S.
MacKenzie, Gregor







Mackie, John
Pavitt, Laurie
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Mackintosh, John P.
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


McNamara, J. Kevin
Pendry, Tom
Strang, Gavin


MacPherson, Malcolm
Pentland, Norman
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. F.


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Perry, Ernest G.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Swain, Thomas


Marks, Kenneth
Prescott, John
Taverns, Dick


Marquand, David
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Probert, Arthur
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Mayhew, Christopher
Rankin, John
Tinn, James


Meacher, Michael
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Tomney, Frank


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Torney, Tom


Mendelson, John
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Tuck, Raphael


Mikardo, Ian
Richard, Ivor
Urwin, T. W.


Millan, Bruce
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Varley, Eric G.


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wainwright, Edwin


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Molloy, William
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Roper, John
Wallace, George


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rose, Paul B.
Watkins, David


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Weitzman, David


Moyle, Roland
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wellbeloved, James


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wells, William Walsall,N.)


Murray, Ronald King
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Ogden, Eric
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Whitlock, William


O'Halloran, Michael
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


O'Malley, Brian
Sillars, James
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Oram, Bert
Silverman, Julius
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Orbach, Maurice
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Orme, Stanley
Small, William
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Oswald, Thomas
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)



Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Spearing, Nigel
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Palmer, Arthur
Stallard, A. W.
Mr. John Golding and


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

[For Division list 133 see col. 448.]

Mrs. Castle: I beg to move Amendment No. 726:
In page 30, line 4, at end insert 'or oroganisations of workers'.

The Temporary Chairman: It will be convenient for the Committee to take also Amendment No. 727, in page 30, line 7, at end insert 'or any organisations of workers'.

Amendment No. 728, in page 30, line 14, after 'union', insert 'or any organisation of workers'.

Amendment No. 729, in page 30, line 17, at end insert 'or any organisations of workers'.

Amendment No. 730, in page 30, line 19, after 'unions', insert 'or any organisations of workers'.

Amendment No. 73, in page 34, line 23, at end insert 'or organisation of workers'.

Amendment No. 734, in page 34, line 24, after 'unions', insert 'or organisation of workers'.

Amendment No. 750, in Clause 52, page 41, line 8, at end insert 'organisation of workers, or'.

Amendment No. 751, in page 41, line 10, after 'union', insert 'or organisation of workers'.

Mrs. Castle: Having discussed the principle of the Government's new machinery, we come in this Clause and subsequent Clauses to examine its details. The first question we must ask is who will be entitled to take advantage of this elaborate provision for the establishment of bargaining units and bargaining agents. In this group of Amendments we are dealing with a principle which runs through the Bill, namely, that unless a trade union registers under the


iniquitous provisions of the Bill it shall be denied the right to operate as a trade union at all. We shall have a lot to say about this as we go through different parts of the Bill and come up against different manifestations of this principle, but in this group of Amendments we are dealing with two particularly mean and damaging facets to good industrial relations.
The first is the denial expressed throughout the Clause of the right of an unregistered union to make an application for recognition for bargaining purposes. Just as an unregistered trade union was denied any rights under the agency shop provision, so an unregistered trade union is denied any rights under the concept of the bargaining unit and the bargaining agent.
The second facet is the denial of the right under Clause 52(5) of an unregistered trade union to have access to the information from the employer which in future the law will provide because the Bill admits that such information is necessary for negotiation. Therefore, what happens in Clause 52 is that if a union is unregistered it will not be entitled to the information without which—and I quote Clause 52(1)—
the trade union representative would be to a material extent impeded in carrying on collective bargaining …
The Government's intention is that any union which on grounds of principle refuses to register on the present Government's terms will not only in future forfeit the traditional protection of Section 3 of the 1906 Act, but will be totally outside the pale of collective bargaining.
That this is the Government's intention is made quite clear in the Consultative Document, and the Bill has faithfully reflected the intention of that document in these Clauses. In paragraph 131 of the Consultative Document the explanation of this bargaining machinery is expressed as follows:
The Government proposes to provide that any registered trade union, any employer or registered employers' association … could make a claim to the National Industrial Relations Court to have any dispute over a trade union's claim for recognition, or over bargaining structure, examined by the C.I.R."—
I emphasise "any registered trade union", and no other.
The Consultative Document says in paragraph 134:
The 'bargaining agent' would be the registered union, or the joint negotiating panel of registered unions, which should have sole negotiating right for all employees within a bargaining unit.
When we study these words we realise the totality of the exclusion of any union which under the Bill is ostensibly given the right to decide not to register. The Government say that if a union wants legal protection it can register, but here they are going much further. As a result of these Clauses unregistered unions for bargaining purposes in innumerable situations would cease to exist. They would vanish into thin air so far as the Government are concerned.
This is a devastating new principle which goes far beyond anything contemplated in Donovan. The Donovan Report has been quoted by the Government ad nauseam and always selectively. The Government have even prayed in aid the Donovan Report in respect of the registration proposals which we shall be discussing in the next part of the Bill. In fact, we shall be discussing them tomorrow and will examine in detail the sort of insults and indecencies the trade unions have to swallow in order to be registered.
I am concerned with the nature of the penal clauses for a union which says that it does not want to register. What are the sanctions against such a union? They will not be legal sanctions in the sense—

Mr. Raymond Gower: The right hon. Gentleman knows that a trader who is required to register under the business names legislation is subjected to certain disabilities in the event of certain kinds of proceedings. Has the right hon. Lady ever considered that kind of requirement to be unreasonable?

Mrs. Castle: It depends first on the nature of the disabilities, and secondly on the purposes which are to be achieved. We have been told that the Government are trying to achieve the better regulation of industrial relations. The only disability Donovan ever suggested was withdrawal of immunity under Section 3 of the 1906 Act. Donovan said that in a particular context. That was in the context of conditions of registration which


in Donovan's words, were to be no more onerous and certainly no more restrictive than the present ones under the 1871 Act. Donovan made clear that he foresaw no difficulties under his conditions for any existing union which is registered to remain on the register, but in withdrawing the immunity of Section 3 of the 1906 Act—with which we on this side never agreed, as is made clear in "In Place of Strife"—Donovan was thinking of temporary unofficial combinations. Donovan makes this quite clear in paragraph 794 in which it visualises how easy it is for anybody to register and the report later examines whether it is right for unofficial groups to have the protection of Section 3 of that Act.
I do not agree with the conclusions of Donovan in regard to withdrawal of that immunity. I am quoting it to show that there is no suggestion in Donovan that if a union refused to register—and the conditions of registration in this Bill are far more far-reaching than anything visualised in the Donovan Report—it would from thenceforth cease to exist in bargaining terms. Therefore we have a principle adopted here whereby the Government say to great trade unions, many of which are now facing great decisions of principle—and I would stress to the Government how important it is for them to take seriously the debate now going on in these unions as to whether as a matter of principle they can consider registering— "Not only will you lose the immunity of Section 3, but you will have no bargaining rights whatsoever, for they will just not be there". It will be purely for the good boys who have signed on their dotted line to be considered to have first and foremost right to make application to go through this machinery and all these gateways, to get "vetted" and ballotted for and therefore finally approved as a bargain agent. If any group of unions one of which, on principle, has said it does not want to register puts forward an application under this it will be ruled out, because only a joint panel of registered unions will be eligible.

Mr. Orme: My right hon. Friend's argument on this principle would apply to my own A.E.W.U. which has already taken a conference decision in regard to registration. But also, is not it rather strange that the words which my right

hon. Friend is seeking to insert are found in every other part of the Bill where they want to catch the unions for unfair industrial practice, but where it is going to operate in this respect those words are deliberately left out, showing the bias there is in this matter?

Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friend is right, but the time for us to elaborate on that in greater detail is tomorrow when we are discussing registration. Then we shall be able to draw together the total picture. I am trying to keep myself within the confines of the Clauses covered by these Amendments, Nos. 42, 46 and 56 broadly, where we seek to have these words inserted. There may be others where we should have done so, but this principle runs through my group of Amendments. With regard to the union's right to receive information from an employer in order to be able to bargain effectively, I believe the Donovan Commission would be absolutely horrified at this attempt to dragoon proud unions into swallowing their principles in this way.
I want to repeat the warning I was giving to right hon. Gentlemen. Many unions are now faced with this decision; and this kind of treatment of the unregistered union is going to make it more likely they will decide not to register, not less likely. There comes a point when the provocation is so great that a man, an institution or a group of people, can only keep their innate pride and dignity by saying, "To hell with you". The Government, in Clauses like this, are provoking otherwise deeply responsible unions into that attitude of mind. This is made all the worse by the discrepancy to which my hon. Friend has just referred, the different treatment in regard to the penalties falling on the organisation. Organisations of workers do not get any plums. It is made worse by the discrepancy to which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred earlier in the debate between the use of the terms "trade union" and "organisation" in this very Clause.
Why is it, for example, that under subsection (1) of this Clause only a trade union or trade unions are entitled to make application for recognition as sole bargaining agent or as a member of a joint negotiating panel whereas in subsection (3) an employer can make an


application for an organisation of workers to be so recognised? We have had no explanation of this discrepancy. The view was expressed by my hon. Friends behind me that this is a clear gateway for an employer to push forward a house union or a company union for recognition as the sole bargaining agent. I say to the Solicitor-General advisedly that no other interpretation can be placed on this discrepancy. How did it slip in? He has said that that is not the intention. This is a very detailed Bill. It has been drafted with considerable consciousness of intention on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have not liked their intentions but we have to admit that they have expressed them very clearly.
I do not believe the Solicitor-General was having a nap when the draftsmen slipped the term "organisation of workers" into subsection (3) instead of the term "trade union" which we have in subsection (1). There was a reason for having that, and it has an effect; because the term "organisation of workers" in Clause 57 of this Bill is not defined in a way that would exclude a house or company union. The Solicitor-General has said that by "organisation of workers" is meant an independent unregistered trade union. He said an organisation of workers is an independent body, it is not a house union.
Certainly, when we insert the words "organisation of workers" we mean an independent trade union which has decided not to register. That is why we have tabled an Amendment which we will be discussing when we come to Clause 57 to amend the definition of "organisation of workers" in that Clause; because at the moment it does not subsume the word "independent". The Solicitor-General says if only we will turn to the interpretation Clause, Clause 148, we will see that our fears here are misplaced. I believe I quote him aright when he referred us to the definition of independence given in that interpretation Clause. It reads:
'independent', in relation to a trade union or other organisation of workers, means not under the domination or control of an employer", etc.
But that is not the same as saying that throughout the Bill wherever the phrase

"organisation of workers" is used, by definition it means that that body is independent.

8.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: There are real questions to be debated here, and I do not want to mislead the right hon. Lady or the Committee on any aspect. "Organisation of workers" is defined in Clause 57, and does not have to be independent. A trade union, as defined in Clause 57, is one that is registered, and a registered trade union—in other words, a registered organisation of workers—has to be independent, in the words in which the right hon. Lady has described it.
The right hon. Lady is right in her premise that "organisation of workers" means an unregistered organisation which need not, by definition, be independent. Trade union means registered, which must be independent. I am not to be taken as conceding the rest of the right hon. Lady's case. The point is that it is only a registered union which can secure recognition enforceable against an employer.

Mrs. Castle: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for his honesty, because when the point was raised earlier by my hon. Friends that subsection (3) meant that an employer could put forward a non-independent organisation of workers for acceptance as the bargaining agent for a bargaining unit, right hon. and learned Gentlemen gave us the impression that that was not so. He is now saying that it is so, that my intepretation of the subsection is correct. The Solicitor-General may go on to say that that is not the Government's intention. If that is his answer, the remedy is clear. It is to put the word "independent" before "organisation of workers", as has been done in another Clause.

The Solicitor-General: I apologise to the right hon. Lady for interrupting again. That is not our intention, and we believe that we have fulfilled our intention, because this is really designed to enable an employer to go through the machinery of the C.I.R. if an unregistered organisation is seeking recognition. It is not designed to enable him to go there to get a tame house union certified by the C.I.R., and what I said on that point is that the C.I.R., consistent with the standards which it has enunciated in its First General Report,


will not put forward for establishment through statutory machinery a non-independent union. But if that were to happen and an independent union were claiming to be recognised instead, it could make its own claim under Clause 42, so that the effect is in line with the intention. I do not want to mislead the Committee, and if the Committee is anxious about it we can consider the way in which it is put forward, but I want to be on common ground about what the words mean.

Mrs. Castle: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for making clear that my analysis of the Clause as it stands is correct. My analysis is under subsection (3) it would be feasible and possible for an employer to put forward a house union to the C.I.R. and the Government's only defence to what is an outrageous proposition, as I think the Committee will agree, is that the C.I.R. in its annual report has made it clear that it will always choose an independent union.
Which C.I.R.? Not the C.I.R. that we have now. Not the C.I.R. with Will Paynter and Alf Allen on it. Not the C.I.R. set up to be an independent voluntary body, operating a voluntary policy. It is a C.I.R. which has become emasculated because the trade union members refuse to be the creatures of the Government's Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman is finding great difficulty in getting to serve on that Committee anybody who would have the confidence of the trade union movement. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, and therefore it is no assurance to anybody to say that the C.I.R. will be the long-stop.
What is the Government's intention? Do they want employers to be free to put forward house unions, tame unions, captive unions? Coupled with that there is the fact that under the Clause as it stands, if strong, established unions refuse to register they will not be allowed to apply or to be considered. The only conclusion that one can draw about the Government's attitude to industrial relations is that they are out to debase and humble proud established trade unions, while giving opportunities for the promotion of tame house and company unions, unless the right hon. Gentleman amends either the definition of "organisation of workers" in Clause 57, or puts the word "independent" in subsection (3) of the

Clause, as he has in Clause 63 where he wants to make it clear that he is talking about an independent organisation. I think I am right in saying that it is Clause 63 which says:
any organisation which—
(a) is an independent organisation of workers".
So where the Government want to make clear that they are talking about independent organisations of workers they put the word in. Will they put the word in to establish their intention; will they insert "organisation of workers" or "independent organisation of workers" at the points of the Clause to which our Amendments refer and in the subsequent Clauses to which our Amendments refer.
We shall have a later Amendment to define "organisation of workers" as always being independent. The right hon. Gentleman can either accept the later Amendment or he can put "independent" in front of "organisation" throughout the Clause.
I ask the Committee to take these two points very seriously. I do not believe that the Government can claim that they are trying to reform industrial relations or introduce greater stability unless they make these two vital Amendments for which we are pressing.

Mr. R. Carr: It might assist the Committee if I give at least a quick interim reply now. I must reply "No" to both the questions which the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) asked.
As the right hon. Lady said, these Amendments raise the whole question of registration and the principle behind it. We shall be discussing the details of that tomorrow and it would not be proper for me to go into them now. However, I think that it is proper to mention the principle.
It is a basic principle of the Bill that privileges and rights should attach to registered unions—registered organisations of workers—over and above those which attach to non-registered ones. That is for better or worse a clear principle of the Bill and it is at the heart of what we are putting forward.
The right hon. Lady talked about the principle in rather emotive language. She talked about dragooning proud unions


into registraton. At the end of her speech the right hon. Lady talked about our being out to debase and humble proud unions by asking them to register if they wanted certain rights and privileges.
What about the public? Are we to debase and humble the public? The right hon. Lady said that the unions would say, "To hell with you". She was not referring to you, Mr. Godman Irvine, but to me. Are we to say to the public, "To hell with you"?

Mr. Orme: Who are the public?

Mr. Carr: The public are the 50 million people of this country. They include about ten million trade unionists and their families, but they are the whole of the people. What we say, and what we believe that it is right to say, is that if unions claim, as they do, and rightly do, to exercise very great influence and very great power in our community, both economically and socially—they claim it; they should claim it; we make no complaint about it—it is not unreasonable that they should comply with certain minimum standards and register so as to achieve that power, that status and those special rights and special privileges. We admit that they should have those special rights and privileges, but we believe that the public as a whole—the 60 million of us—have a right to say to any trade union or to any other organisation—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is 60 million now. A few moments ago the Secretary of State said that it was 50 million.

Mr. Carr: —of people in this country, whether they be trade unions, doctors, architects, traders or any section one likes to mention, "If you claim to exercise power in our community, you should comply with certain minimum standards". That is the basic principle of registration. It is the basic principle of the Bill. I should be very surprised if that principle did not have the overwhelming support of the vast majority of people, including trade unionists.
There is nothing oppressive in the conditions for registration which we lay down and which have to be fulfilled. This is not dragooning proud trade unions. It is not debasing or humbling them. It is asking proud unions which were once

very weak but which are now strong to accept the responsibilities and duties in relation to the rest of the community which the community has the right to expect and which every other sector of the community has laid upon it. That is the basis of registration, and we had better get it clear before we start. We can discuss the details of it tomorrow.
The principle of registration was accepted by the Donovan Commission and by the right hon Lady the Member for Blackburn. The details, which I agree are very important, are different. We are not talking about the details now. We are talking about the principle of registration. If our conditions for registration are wrong, that is an argument which we can have tomorrow. What we are now saying—and surely it should be possible for the two sides of the Committee to agree about it since it was recommended by the Donovan Commission and by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn when she was in my position—is that registration should be a pre-condition of achieving trade union status. The form and conditions of registration are matters for important argument. We are now discussing the principle of registration as a pre-condition to achieving trade union status and all that goes with it. A principle of our Bill is that registration should be the means of obtaining certain important rights and privileges.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn talked about the provisions in Clause 42 clearing a gateway for employers to push forward a house union. That is nonsense. The whole burden of the right hon. Lady's argument—and I am sure that she is more rational than her argument made her out to be—concerned the great disability attaching to non-registration. She says that by confining these rights—in the last debate they were "evil powers", but now they are "rights"—to registered bodies we are unfairly placing a disability on non-registered bodies. That is a point of view. But, by definition, the house union, which she is afraid of and which she says we are clearing a gateway for, must remain non-registered because it can acquire registration and the rights which go with it only if it can satisfy the registrar that it is not employer-dominated.
If an employer puts forward an unregistered union under this procedure, as


I agree an employer could do, what is the good of the C.I.R. recommending it? The complaint in this Amendment is that an unregistered body will get no benefit from that process. But the house union must, by definition, remain unregistered. It is therefore nonsense to suggest that the Clause advances the employer-dominated house union. It benefits registered unions. That is what the Amendment complains about, because the Clause gives benefit to registered unions which is denied to unregistered unions. If one says that it gives benefits to registered unions which are denied to unregistered unions, one cannot say that it is promoting house unions which, by definition, must remain unregistered.

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Orme: If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, there are no benefits at the end of the day, why does he allow them to be referred to the Industrial Court in the first place? Second, will he tell the Committee why employers have a right to refer any trade union in this regard? This is a matter for trade unions. The Government are now bringing in another party that can interfere with the freedom and basic right of a trade union. Why have they given the employer this right, so that he can differentiate between one class of union and another?

Mr. Carr: As I have already explained, it is because we believe, as a matter of principle, that certain benefits and rights should accrue to registered unions. If an employer is faced with an unregistered body seeking to obtain negotiating rights in competition with a registered union—

Mr. Orme: Smash the unions.

Mr. Carr: It is no good the hon. Member sitting there muttering, "Smash the unions". We are talking about an employer faced with an unregistered body, probably in competition with a registered union, and the employer wanting to resolve the conflict caused by this intrusion by an unregistered body. We properly give that employer the right to go through this procedure and to say to the C.I.R., "We believe that we have a recognition problem here which needs your help to resolve, because we have been unable to resolve it through all the normal

channels." The employer would go to the C.I.R. in this case not to obtain a blessing on an unregistered union but to try to persuade the C.I.R. to give their support to the registered body with which he wants to negotiate and to deal with the unregistered intruder which is causing the trouble. That is the purpose.
True, the employer could also ask for a house union to be considered, as the right hon. Lady said. But, as I have said before, what would be the purpose of this? Whatever the C.I.R. might advise, it is most unlikely that it would recommend a dominated house union for recognition, but even if it were mad enough to do so, what would be the purpose? All the legal privileges which come in this Clause attach only to registered unions and, therefore, could not attach to the employer-dominated house union, which has been raised as a bogey.

Mr. Roland Moyle: Accepting for the sake of argument that all that the right hon. Gentleman says is true, what have the Government to lose if they accede to the Amendments? What have they to lose by accepting the case pressed from this side of the Committee?

Mr. Carr: We want to preserve the position which I have just mentioned, about the employer who is having trouble with recognition. Also, we believe that registered unions should have privileges and rights above unregistered unions. It is not true to say, as the right hon. Lady said earlier—

Mr. Moyle: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I was talking about the specific case in which an employer would take a house union to the C.I.R. I understand that he is arguing that the house union would in any case be ineffectual because of the provisions of the Bill. If that is the case, why on earth does he not concede the case argued by this side of the Committee, because there is nothing between us?

Mr. Carr: I maintain that it is unnecessary to add anything, because since the privileges attaching to this Clause can apply only to the registered unions, they cannot, by definition, apply to the employer-dominated house unions. My only objection is that this Amendment, clearly, is not necessary. By definition, it is ruled out, because the employer-dominated union which hon. Gentlemen


opposite rightly do not wish to see encouraged could not achieve registration and therefore would not benefit under the Clause. That is the basic answer.

Mrs. Castle: The language throughout this group of Clauses is totally arbitrary and confusing. One Clause refers to "trade union". Another refers to "organisation of workers". Let me refer the right hon. Gentleman to Clause 45(3), where a question has been referred to the Commission about bargaining rights and the Commission has examined the case and transmitted a report. The Clause says in subsection (3):
A report of the Commission under this section shall not recommend the recognition of an organisation of workers … as sole bargaining agent … unless it appears to the Commission … that this would be in accordance with the general wishes of the employees …".
There is an clear indication that the Commission can and might recommend an organisation of workers. All that it has to do is satisfy itself that, for example, the employees of a bank want the bank's house union and not the Union of Bank Employees.
It is true that only a trade union can make application to the Industrial Court for an order enforcing it where a trade union has been nominated. But an employer can apply to the court. Therefore, I suggest that for some inexplicable reason the right hon. Gentleman is dodging from one phrase to another. In one Clause it is "trade union" and in another, "organisation of workers". For clarity of drafting, we should have consistency.

Mr. Carr: The right hon. Lady is missing the point. We believe that the Commission on Industrial Relations should be able to recommend an unregistered organisation, provided that that is put to the test and found to be the wish—

Mrs. Castle: Mrs. Castle rose—

Mr. Carr: The right hon. Lady must be patient and allow me to finish my sentence. We believe that the C.I.R. should be able to recommend an unregistered organisation, provided that it is put to the test and discovered to be the wish of the majority of the workers.
Let us suppose that that has happened. To achieve the legal sanctification, potency and benefit that the Clause confers, that unregistered body would have to become registered. If it remained unregistered, it would not have the benefit, protection and status provided by the Clause. If that unregistered body were an employer-dominated house union, it would not be able to achieve registration and, therefore, would not be able to achieve the sanctification of the Clause.

Mr. Heffer: But it does not have to be registered. The right hon. Gentleman does not understand his own language.

Mr. Carr: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Mr. Heffer: Clause 45(2)(c) refers to
… every trade union or other organisation of workers …".
It does not go on:
… which under the terms of this Section will then become a trade union.

Mr. Carr: If the hon. Gentleman turns to Clause 46, he will discover that in order to be given the power, validity and legal status conferred by this Clause, it has to be a registered trade union. That is the whole point. In so far as the Clause is held to confer benefits, they should be benefits only for a registered trade union.
The right hon. Lady began her speech by saying that an unregistered body is not to have any bargaining rights. That is nonsense. I must remind the Committee of what I said in replying to the debate on Clause 41. Here, we are dealing only with the safety net procedure. It is a procedure for catching the cases which fall through the net of normal industrial relations procedures. Of course, unregistered organisations of workers can always bargain.
We are saying that unregistered organisations shall not have new statutory rights —for example, in respect of this Clause, or, to take another point raised by the right hon. Lady, in respect of information. They do not have those rights at the moment. In future, they will have the rights which they have now, but the new statutory rights will be confined to registered bodies.
There are no penal sanctions against unregistered bodies, but there is a denial of certain rights. It may be controversial,


but we believe that it should rest on the principal of registration. Whether our principles of registration are right or wrong is no doubt a matter of separate debate and deep controversy. All we are saying is that these rights should depend on the achievement of registration. We believe that to be a sound principle, and we shall stand by it.

Mr. Orme: Listening to the involved reply which has just been given by the right hon. Gentleman, in which he went from one Clause to another to try to prove his point—my right hon. Friend pointed out that "organisation of workers" appears in one Clause and "trade unions" in another—makes me wonder whether shop stewards and trade union officials will understand it.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see the validity of the argument which we have put forward on the Amendment. My right hon. Friend pointed out that the Amendment talks about voluntary independent trade unions, but the Minister's proposal will take away from them these basic rights. The right hon. Gentleman spoke polemically on this matter. We feel just as strongly in answering his point.
I want to deal with the right of the employer to refer a matter to the court for decision on which should be the bargaining agent. It was not clear to me why this was written into the Bill in such detail. Now I begin to see, after what the Minister said, why it is put in. It means, for instance, that, in an industry where there is an unregistered militant trade union or a union which the employer finds difficult in negotiations and there is also a registered trade union, the employer will be free to submit the registered trade union, not the voluntary union, and get the Commission's endorsement or recommendation that that body shall be the negotiating agent.
I understood the Minister to say that every union would have the right, or a ballot would be available, to decide which should be the negotiating agent. But, as I see it, it could be used deliberately by an employer, first to try to buy time against perhaps the main union in the organisation and, secondly, to undermine that non-registered trade union.
I believe that the Minister will be faced with a situation in which unions will not

register—probably some of the key trade unions—and this will call into question the whole basis of the Bill.
I assume that throughout the whole of the Clauses, the industrial notes for guidance will spell out many of these facts. We ought to know what these notes for guidance are. Again, we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke.
Many of these Clauses are unintelligible unless the Code of Industrial Practice runs alongside. I assume that the Code will deal with many of these points, but we do not have it. We have no indication of what it will say. The more we go into the jungle of these Clauses, 42, 43 and 44, the more we see the difficulties which we are up against. They will not untangle industrial difficulties but will make life almost impossible for people of good will in industry when faced with an employer or an employer's organisation which wants to be a devil's advocate against a union, whether a house union or a registered union. This could be disastrous and I do not think that the Minister has seen this point.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Gower: We appreciate the manner in which the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and his right hon. Friend have spoken passionately for what they conceive to be the best interests of the trade unions and those whom they represent. I only regret that implicit in the manner of their speaking, is a conviction, which I am sure is misplaced, that, whereas they have the best interests of the unions passionately at heart, the Government are intent only on destroying or bashing the unions, or, as the hon. Member for Salford, West said, knocking them down—

Mr. Orme: History shows it.

Mr. Gower: It shows nothing of the kind. I am prepared to debate that with the hon. Gentleman, but this is not the time.
This country needs a strong, self-reliant trade union movement. Our industry cannot do without it.

Mr. Heffer: There was a report in The Times yesterday on the West German trade union movement, which showed that, as a result of there no longer being


any closed shop or 100 per cent. trade unionism, there has been a rapid decline in strength and power of the trade unions.

Mr. Gower: I am sorry for any trade union movement which cannot achieve maximum membership through the quality of its service to its members. I hope and believe that our experience will be to the contrary.
Any Government needs a strong, virile and self-reliant trade union movement. I see nothing in the registration requirements complained of by the right hon. Lady which should be of any difficulty to our excellent trade unions. Indeed, most of them will automatically fulfil the reasonable requirements for registration.
The right hon. Lady did not reply clearly to the simply question which I asked her about those engaged in trade who have to fulfil the simple requirement of registration under the Business Names Act. If they fail to do so, they are at a serious disability if they then have to sue for non-fulfilment of a contract. But no one has suggested that that requirement of registration is unreasonable. Similarly, practically every commercial organisation, from the joint stock company in all its infinite varieties, private public and otherwise, must fulfil very comprehensive requirements of registration. The requirements here are reasonable, as my right hon. Friend has been at pains to point out.

Mr. Heffer: They do not have to accept an enemy in their camp, do they? Clause 61(7) virtually means that a trade union will have to accept someone who is basically against the interests of the union, whether it likes it or not. If it does not accept that, it cannot be registered.

Mr. Gower: As that it has to do is to satisfy the formalities of the Act and show the registrar that its rules and procedures are fair, democratic and reasonable. To us, that is unexceptionable, and I should have thought that it would appeal to most hon. Members. Is it reasonable to add the words in the Amendment and so lessen the require-

ment for registration prescribed by the Bill?
My right hon. Friend's reply is unanswerable. The requirement is merely one that will enable any registered trade union to apply for the very considerable powers as special bargaining agents. There are no express disabilities from non-registration. It merely happens that this is one of the new extensive powers that unions will very properly hold and exercise under the Bill.
I see no objection to the present wording. The Amendment is impossibly loose. The phrase
or organisations of workers
could mean almost anything. It would not even be limited to a sort of unofficial trade union. It could include all kinds of organisations of workers which could be totally unrepresentative. I cannot believe that the Opposition will really divide the Committee on such absurdly wide wording.

Mr. Orme: If it is such terrible wording and is so wide, why does it keep appearing in all other parts of the Bill?

Mr. Gower: I am saying that it is absurdly loose in this precise context. The Bill provides that the application be made by any trade union, and the Opposition chime in with
or organisations of workers".
That wording is far too wide and imprecise in this context, and for that reason alone must be rejected.

Mrs. Castle: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is too loosely worded and imprecise to be included in subsection (3)?

Mr. Gower: I am dealing solely with the Amendment.

Mr. John Fraser: When the Secretary of State replied to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) he did what he has done once or twice in the Committee. When stuck with a problem of reality and a problem of the drafting of the Bill he retreats to something he calls principle, as if he will ascend into the clouds at Blackpool in October and draw divine inspiration for something he cannot justify to the Committee. That is what he has done this time. He knows perfectly well that there


is a real drafting problem and a problem in reality raised by the absence of a provision that an organisation of workers may apply for recognition. He reminds me very much of the Sorcerer's Apprentice. Instead of getting a spell book, the right hon. Gentleman got a law book from the Solicitor-General. He will learn one day the same lesson as the Sorcerer's Apprentice learned—not to meddle with academic abstractions when dealing with reality.
What the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) are saying is that it is wrong if the National Union of Mineworkers refuses to register or if the Amalgamated Union of Engineering and Foundry Workers refuses to register, and they shall not be accorded recognition rights. He said that they must be forced to register; they must comply with basic provisions in order to achieve recognition rights. That is the argument.
Let us think about reality, not principle. Is the Secretary of State suggesting that if large unions choose not to register they should be denied recognition of the right to negotiate with the employers? What is also suggested, if that is not his argument, is not that one must register to obtain certain privileges, but that certain privileges will be taken away from one if one remains exactly as one is at the moment.
When the right hon. Gentleman says that certain privileges will be accorded only to those who go through the hoop of registration, he has the whole equation wrong. He is equating a trade union with something that does not even exist on the employer's side. He is not saying to us, for example, that, on the employer's side, in a corporate body such as a limited company, every member of that corporate organisation should obey certain principles. If he were saying that, he would surely be saying that the Government believe in putting an end to non-voting shares. He says that every member of a trade union must have control over its branches, its officials and its funds. Is he saying that every shareholder should have control over the directors of the company, should participate in the organisation and should have control over its branches? He is getting the equation wrong.

The Solicitor-General: All we are saying at the moment is that the range of law that governs trade unions and their relations with their members is and should be at least as open to public debate and variation in the interests of the public and of trade union members as company law has been over the last 100 years. Company law has been changed and re-changed and modernised to deal exactly with these points, and it has happened without controversy. All we are asserting is that relations in trade unions should be as much open to consideration and discussion.

Mr. Fraser: What the hon. and learned Gentleman has forgotten is that one can choose to operate as a limited company or as a partnership. If one chooses to operate as a partnership, there is practically no legal restriction on one. We say that people should have the right to operate as a registered trade union or as an unregistered trade union. That is the equation.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: In a partnership, the full funds of the two partners are at risk and therefore they are more at hazard at the law than is a company. In the comparisons the hon. Gentleman is making between a union—an association of workers, if he likes—and partnerships, he will find that there is greater imposition of law on partnerships than is contained in the Bill.

Mr. Fraser: I do not disagree, but, first, the privileges are greater, and, secondly—and this is the vital thing—it is the principle of association that one has the right to choose whether one does one thing or the other. But the right hon. Gentleman is saying that any trade union in negotiation with employers will not have the right to choose because, if it does not register, there will not be the right to recognition.

Mr. R. Carr: I am not saying that. I am saying that if, for example, the N.U.M. remained unregistered, it would have just as much right, unregistered, to obtain recognition from the National Coal Board as it has today. But it would not have acquired a new extra legal right to recognition over and above what it has today unless it registered.

Mr. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman chooses the N.U.M. as an example of an


organisation with which, he says, a State organisation will continue to negotiate. He concedes that he is refusing the right to apply for recognition as a trade union. But under the structure of the Bill, the employer can go to the Industrial Relations Court and apply for de-recognition. No doubt he will say that the C.I.R. would not be mad enough to produce that situation, but he is producing a Bill whereby it is possible for employers, who do not have to go through this hoop, to apply to have a union de-recognised, and in the context of organisations which are recognised as responsible, that is ridiculous.
9.15 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman says that under Clause 46 the Court can accord recognition only to a registered trade union. Why is it that Clause 43 talks about an "organisation of workers"? Why is it that Clause 45(3) talks about:
A report of the Commission under this section shall not recommend the recognition of an organisation of workers …
unless certain conditions are fulfilled? Then it goes on in Clause 45(5) to say:
… before recommending any organisation of workers …
and in subsection (6) it says:
Any recommendation contained in such a report may be made subject to such conditions as the Commission think fit; and in particular (but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection) any such condition—
(a) may require an organisation of workers recommended for recognition…".
Subsection (b) says:
may require any organisation of workers so recommended …".
How on earth can he quote his statement to the Committee that only a registered trade union can have an order for recognition when he uses the phrase "organisation of workers" repeatedly?
There is only one explanation—that it is only where the trade union is to be recognised that there can be a ballot and that is where the words "trade union" appear in Clause 46. It could be that under that provision the Commission for Industrial Relations could recommend a house union for recognition without a ballot but where the registered trade union wants recognition, it has to have a ballot. If the right hon. Gentleman

says that I have completely misconstrued the terms of his Bill, then all I can say is that I am entitled to because of the way it is drafted. May I ask him or his learned friend not to run away from the argument by talking about principles. Will he please answer the debate?

Mr. R. Carr: The hon. Member has completely forgotten in his argument that the whole reason for using the words "organisation of workers" in those Clauses is to give every opportunity to a body that is unregistered at the moment to get into position and be recommended for recognition, and to get registration so as to be able to have the enforcement of its rights in Clause 46. If it were an employer-dominated house union—I must repeat what I have said—it would fail to get the registration and therefore would not get the rights and privileges conferred in Clause 46.

Mrs. Castle: If that is so, what is the objection to putting the word "independent" in front of "organisation of workers"? As long as the right hon. Gentleman refuses to put in one simple clarifying word that would allay everyone's doubts, he must exacerbate those doubts.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: This Amendment throws a good deal of light on one of the paradoxes of the Bill to which I have tried to draw attention. My right hon. Friend has said many times, and I accept his sincerity, that his intention is to be perfectly fair as between employers and organised workers. The way this fairness is translated into legislative form in most Clauses is by assuming that trade unions and employers' organisations are mirror images of each other, that they are equal, symmetrical twin pillars on which the whole structure can be built. In some Clauses, particularly Clauses 61 and 65, virtually identical rules are laid down for those two kinds of organisations. But the fact is that trade unions and employers' associations are totally different kinds of structure. I will not go into detail about all the differences that are relevant, but there are several points in the Bill where this artificial parallel breaks down completely, and this Clause is one of them.
My right hon. Friend has said, quite rightly, that it is his intention to insist on confining certain privileges, one of which


is embodied in the Clause, to those who have accepted the responsibilities of registration. He does that for trade unions, but he does not do it for employers. If we look one line further beyond the Amendment, we see that an employer has the right conferred by Clause 42 without any proviso or requirement about registration under the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has pointed out that employers have to be registered under company legislation, which is perfectly true, but there is no obligation in the Clause on an employer to undergo the process of registration and to accept the responsibilities of registration before he enjoys the privileges created by Clause 42(1).
My right hon. Friend has good reason for insisting that the privilege on the side of organised workers should be confined to the registered trade union. He has made out his case on that point, but if he wishes to be fair, should he not also write into the following line an addition specifying that this privilege is only to be enjoyed by an employer who is a member of an employers' association and therefore limited by the same requirement of registration, as defined in the later Clauses of the Bill, as the trade union is in operating under the previous line of this Clause?

Mr. James Sillars: I am sorry to detain the Committee, but it is necessary to question the Secretary of State a little more deeply on the details of the Clause. During the debate I have been going backwards and forwards through the pages and getting mixed up, for example, between the joint negotiating panel, which refers to two or more organisations of workers, and the joint negotiating trade union panel, which deals with registered organisations. As one goes through the relevant Clauses one finds occasionally the "joint negotiating panel", which is obviously taken to be the joint negotiating trade union panel.
The Secretary of State said that one of the misconceptions on this side of the Committee was to think that we were talking about a general situation. He claimed that this was a safety net, the long stop, to take account of the occasional situation that arises. I refer the Committee to the Explanatory Memorandum, which says nothing of the kind. It simply says:

Clause 42 provides for an interested employer, one or more trade unions or the Secretary of State to present to the Industrial Court an application that the Commission on Industrial Relations should be asked to examine questions relating to the definition of a bargaining unit and recognition of an organisation of workers or joint negotiating panel as sole bargaining agent with exclusive negotiating rights.
There is nothing there to say that the Clause is intended to deal with the exceptional case. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) that it is possible under Clause 42 to have established house unions or creature unions of the employers.
The trade union is entitled to make an application but not an organisation of workers. Yet the employer is entitled to make an application on behalf of an organisation of workers. Naturally, in the light of the history of the trade union movement, particularly of the Foremen's Mutual Benefit Society, we are bound to be suspicious of a such situation. Nowhere in Clause 42 and subsequent Clauses do we find any explanation for the situation which might arise when an employer creates a house union and makes an application to the court for that house union to be the sole bargaining agent.
What happens when the court examines the case and finds that both the employer and the house union are in agreement that the house union should be the sole bargaining agent? Clause 43 and subsequent Clauses deal with the situation where there is a conflict of interest or view between employer and trade union. Clause 43, for example, says that the court must be satisfied that both parties
have made adequate use of any facilities for conciliation available to them.
But what does the Court do when the parties are not in disagreement? We are entitled to ask the Secretary of State for a detailed reply on this point. This again is an excellent example of the reason that a guillotine should never have been applied to this Bill, simply because of the sloppy wording of Clauses 42 to 50.

Mr. Iremonger: One thing on which both sides of the Committee is clearly united is the fact that there are benefits, rights and privileges which it is intended trade unions should enjoy. Up until now


I had thought that this was a generally-recognised principle. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) did himself less than justice by saying that this was not a matter of principle. I regard this as one of the fundamental principles of the Bill.

Mr. John Fraser: What I said, or was trying to say, was not that it was not a matter of principle, but that it is no good trying to escape detailed argument by saying that it is just a matter of principle and stopping there.

Mr. Iremonger: That may well be, and perhaps I have the hon. Member with me in saying that it would be a matter of principle. I certainly thought that both sides of the Committee were united that the benefits, privileges and rights enjoyed by trade unions should be dependent upon trade unions being registered.

Mr. Heffer: It is like the privileges of a man in gaol.

Mr. Iremonger: It lies ill in the mouth of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) to denigrate the rights, benefits and privileges which are the object of this legislation—

Hon. Members: What rights?

Mr. Iremonger: I will answer that in one sentence: the rights conferred by Section 42—otherwise what are hon. Members talking about? Presumably they are arguing that they want trade unions to be able to enjoy certain rights. Perhaps the most obvious right is that contained in the Clause with which we are dealing, namely the right to be recognised as a sole bargaining agent. If that is not a right worth talking about, then we are wasting our time in discussing this matter.

Mr. James Tinn: Will the hon. Member not accept that trade unions are quite prepared to safeguard their own rights, whether it be of recognition or anything else, without having to depend on legislation such as that contained in the Bill which will restrict them in so many ways?

Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Member is a little unwise, because the rights enjoyed by trade unions are those conferred by

legislation. Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act is a right conferred by law on trade unions, and I should have thought that if it were sought to repeal those rights any such move would be very much resisted.
9.30 p.m.
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman really cannot have it both ways. Either the Amendment he has put down is designed to secure a benefit or it is not, and if it is then we might take it as agreed that a benefit is to be secured and that is what we are talking about. The argument before the Committee is whether or not the benefit ought to be dependent upon registration and I had thought that that was common ground between both sides of the Committee. I agree that it is open to argument whether or not the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) is correct, fair and right in saying that the provisions for registration in this Bill are odious and unacceptable. That is her view, and it is something which the Committee will have to consider in due course when we come to it tomorrow.
That is absolutely fundamental, but the point I wish to establish at this stage on these Amendments is that it really is not appropriate for the right hon. Lady, who I believe is about to rise and I would like to know her comments on this, to deny the second principle which is that the rights conferred by the Clause, or any other part of any enactment, should be dependent upon registration; because she has herself analysed the situation in these words:
The present legal requirements relating to the rules of trade unions are inadequate and should be extended in the interests both of the unions and of their members.
She goes on to say that legislation should propose that trade unions should register with a new registrar of trade unions and that unions will be required to have rules governing certain matters—admission, discipline, disputes between a union and its members, elections, strike ballots and the appointment and functions of shop stewards, and should be required to register. The right hon. Lady even went further and said that refusal to register by a trade union should lay that trade union open to a financial penalty by the Industrial Board.


At this stage, therefore, although the Committee may well be persuaded by the right hon. Lady when the time comes that the provisions for registration in the Bill are wrong or unfair or should be changed, it is a matter on which the Committee will have to decide and we are not prejudging it now. But, with great respect, it is quite wrong for hon. Gentlemen opposite at this stage to try to fly in the face of the principle which is fully accepted by both sides that the very considerable rights and privileges which trade unions claim should be enjoyed without registration, and registration subject to rules determined upon by this House.

Mr. R. Carr: I intervene only for a moment, but it might be helpful to the Committee if I do so because I believe there is at least one point on which we can reach agreement. I have said quite clearly, as has my hon. and learned Friend, that it is not the intention to encourage the employer-dominated house union. We also believe, and genuinely believe, that that is not the effect of the Clause as it is worded at the moment: and I have explained why. Nevertheless, while I do not like adding unnecessary words to a Bill, I do not mind adding one if it helps to solve the difficulty.
I must say to the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) that I do not believe it is possible to add it where she would wish to add it in this context. I believe the place to add it might be in Clause 45, and I will tell the Committee that when we come to that point at another stage I will consider very favourably the possibility of including there something which makes clear that the Commission will be empowered only to put forward as a sole bargaining agent an organisation which is independent. That, at least, would clear up that point beyond peradventure.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Mrs. Castle: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for trying to help us achieve greater clarity. Clearly we shall want to examine the right hon. Gentleman's proposal before we are satisfied that it offers us greater clarity or that it goes far enough. None the less, we shall be glad to examine the proposal on Report, which is no doubt when the right hon. Gentleman will put it forward.
The right hon. Gentleman realises that he has not conceded the main principle behind our Amendments, and we therefore intend to divide the Committee. He has tried to say that nobody should be opposed to the principle of registration, that I have not opposed it in "In Place of Strife", and so on. He says that we ought to agree on that, even though we argue about the conditions tomorrow. Our case is that it is impossible to differentiate between the principle of registration and the conditions of registration.
The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) rattled off at me about the trader who has to register under the Register of Business Names Act and said that there was nothing iniquitous about that and nothing to which anybody can object, but, as I told the hon. Gentleman, no great disabilities follow, and whether it is iniquitous to expect a trader to register depends entirely upon the conditions imposed upon him and what disabilities might flow from that requirement. Would the trader to whom he referred have registered so equably if, as a condition, he was forced to allow someone to work for him who was also working for his competitor?
That is the kind of condition which will be imposed on the trade unions under the next part of the Bill. We cannot accept that we should concede the principle of registration and argue merely about conditions, and I ask my hon. Friends to divide the Committee.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 258, Noes 300.

[For Division List 134, col. 451.]

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I beg to move Amendment No. 697:

In page 30, line 5, to leave out '(b) an employer'.

The Chairman: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 698, page 30, line 21, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Douglas-Mann: The purpose of the Amendments is to delete the provision under which an employer can apply for a trade union to be appointed


the sole bargaining agent and the subsequent provisions in subsection (3).
The great danger to which the Secretary of State and other Ministers have referred which these very unsatisfactory provisions of the Bill are designed to meet would all be satisfactorily met by deleting the provision which the Amendment is designed to eliminate and leaving the trade union to make an application to be appointed the sole bargaining agent and the employer, in the rare cases in which the problem justified the step, to make an application to the Secretary of State to apply for a union to be appointed as sole bargaining agent.
The reasons which prompted me to move the Amendment stem from my fears of the danger of grave abuses which the Bill as it stands leaves wide open. I shall not repeat the arguments which I advanced on Clause 41, but there is a very substantial danger that an employer could seek to promote a tame company union, or a tame union, to be the sole bargaining agent.
Although the Solicitor-General will no doubt point out that the C.I.R. is unlikely enthusiastically to recommend such a union, there have been many situations in which employers have successfully promoted amongst their staff a trade union which was very subservient to the employers' interests.
When speaking earlier this afternoon, the Secretary of State drew attention to the fact that the union that would be appointed must be independent. I was hesitant to contradict him at that time, but I was delighted a few minutes ago to hear him conceding that there is no provision in the Bill as it stands to ensure that the sole bargaining agent is an independent union, and that he is now proposing to ensure at the Report stage that Amendments to guarantee the independence of the unions will be introduced.
But the definition of "independent" contained in Clause 148 is not by any means sufficiently watertight. The wording is:
'independent', in relation to a trade union or other organisation of workers, means not under the domination or control of an employer or of a group of employers or of one or more organisations of employers;
Presumably there is no case law at present on the subject of what "domina-

tion or control" means precisely with regard to trade unions. But if one has a union even with a wholly independent executive or with a majority of elected representatives, say, seven elected representatives and five representatives appointed by the employer on its executive, it would still come within the definition of "independent" contained in Clause 148. Even if one has a union with a wholly elected executive, if they were, for example, elected for very long periods, it is within the knowledge of most hon. Members that trade union officials are no more immune from gradual weakening of resolution than anyone else. There are great incentives for an employer to get a quiescent trade union appointed as a sole bargaining agent with which he can subsequently make legally enforceable collective agreements which are binding on many people who are not and would not wish to be members of the trade union concerned, but who wished to belong to another union which was prohibited from getting itself put forward as an alternative bargaining agent.
I urge the Government to accept the Amendment, which would remove from these provisions the dangers of the most serious abuses. Many abuses would remain, but the most serious is that of the employer promoting a tame union. The Amendment is designed to ensure that that cannot occur.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: We have had a good deal of discussion, and right hon. and hon. Members opposite seem to be very concerned about tame unions or unions tied to the skirts of employers. I should have thought that Mr. Clive Jenkins was getting rid of a great many of them. His activities in recent years been been quite effective in increasing the size of his own union. Because we believe that trade unions are effective if they are well organised, we have no complaint about that. Indeed, I understand that employers have not complained in some of the establishments where Mr. Jenkins has gained a footing.
There is a danger that we may have from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite the suggestion that they are concerned about tame unions when what they are concerned about is the possibility of smaller unions developing at the expense of some of the bigger ones. We


on this side of the Committee have no such inhibition. We believe in competition between unions just as much as anywhere else. If some of the smaller unions grow and become more effective, that is all to the good. I have in mind some of the white-collar technical unions, for instance. If trade unions are efficient and give good service to their members, they cannot be tame unions. No employer will be able to hold a union in his grasp if it is known that another union is knocking on the door and can offer to the work people concerned a service which is better than that being provided by what might be a house union.
Whatever may be said by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and however they may criticise what they feel are the disadvantages of the Bill, it also gives many advantages, some but not all of which were contained in their own proposals. The advantages are greater than the disadvantages and, if trade unions are strengthened, they will be more able to give the kind of service to their members which will make tame or house unions completely obsolete.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann). When the Committee considered the last group of Amendments, the Government's answers to the straight question of the difference that registration makes were totally obscure.
It will not have escaped the notice of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that the trade unions are not altogether enamoured with much of this proposed legislation. On balance, it may be that a number of important trade unions will decide not to register. I do not want to exaggerate the position, but it may be that the General Council will recommend that unions should not register. If that happens, I do not see how the legislation can function. However, such a state of affairs will bring very much to the forefront what are the advantages of registration.
Listening to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am still not clear what the advantages are. One hon. Member on the back benches opposite said that his party did not seek to take away any of the rights of trade unions, even if they

did not register. If that is so, what is the point of registration?
These are points which the Government have not yet made clear. Taking the engineering industry as an example, let us suppose that the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions decides that it will not register. The position will be reached where an employer makes a recommendation about the type of union which shall constitute the sole bargaining agent. There will be the three parties: the trade unions, the employers and the Secretary of State. There will be no recommendation from any trade union. There will be a recommendation from an employer, and it may be that what has been described as a tame house union will be put forward by the employer as the sole union with which he wants to bargain. Therefore, we shall be inviting industrial strife on a very wide scale if an employer's recommendation of that kind of union as the sole bargaining agent is to be accepted. Even if the unions are not desirous of registering, it would be far better, from the Government's point of view, to put the onus on them of suggesting the bargaining agent rather than the employer.
10.0 p.m.
I think that the Amendment, which seeks to delete the grave dangers which nomination by an employer in these conditions would bring, is, certainly from my angle, important and, from the Government's angle, well worth consideration.
The Government could help if they were more precise in defining whether registration is to be considered as a prime factor in determining who shall be the sole bargaining agent. Given two bona fide unions, affiliated to the T.U.C., as it were, running neck and neck on the numbers employed, and so on, if one were registered and the other were not, would that be the determining factor in the eyes of the Government as to which should get the right of negotiation?
We have not had answers to points like this. Instead, we hear about the virtues of principles. I remind the Government about a famous Irishman who suggested that there are times when a man must rise above principle. I think that this is such an occasion. Unless and until we get answers to some of


these points I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.

Mr. Gower: It seems that if we abstracted from the Bill "(b) an employer" and the qualifying part of subsection (3) we should be restricting the power to make such an application to a trade union and to the Secretary of State. I suggest that there may be occasions on which it might be a great advantage for the employer to have this additional power. I appreciate why the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) has his doubts about the additional power, and he has explained them.
I am sure that we can all imagine cases in which a reasonably efficient staff association could fulfil admirably most of the functions of a trade union. I accept that it would be undesirable in some cases that there should be a tame staff association or union which was unduly dominated by the employer. But, as my right hon. Friend pointed out on an earlier Clause, if such an organisation were to be brought within the ambit of the Clause and to obtain these rights, it is inconceivable that it would subsequently obtain the registration which it needed to fulfil those powers.
In the other Clauses dealing with registration, he will see that, to carry out effectively the powers sought under this subsection, the association which he describes as tame would need to apply for registration. As my right hon. Friend said, in those circumstances, it is not conceivable that such an association, dominated by an employer, would fulfil the requirements. This additional power could be effectively used by some employers. They could apply on behalf of valid unions which would fulfil a valid function. It would weaken the Clause to take out these words.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Clause 42 deals with proposals for recognition of a sole bargaining agent, which is defined in Clause 41(c) as one of the work people in the unit referred to there. It seems completely outwith any concept of industrial relations that the sole bargaining agent should be at any time at the behest of an employer. The definition is concerned

solely with the employee's interests, so I see no case for an employer being able to determine the sole bargaining agency, except under the conditions to which my hon. Friend referred.
In other words, the only case for giving an employer this right is when the employer decides that he wants a tame union of the company type which has bedevilled the trade union movement, particularly in some of the professional spheres to which the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) referred when talking about Clive Jenkins.
If the Under-Secretary could tell me some circumstances in which it can legitimately be argued that an employer could advance a case for this nomination, I might be convinced. Unless we are very careful, and unless the Amendment is accented, we shall have the situation in which an employer desires to have a tame union or a company union and a measurable number of employees will resist. If an employer takes advantage of the opportunity afforded to him under the Measure to nominate the sole bargaining agency, whether it is a professional or industrial type of unit that he represents, inevitably the lads will want to have a union of their own, as distinct from the employer's union, and we shall have industrial conflict.
Can the Under-Secretary tell me the kind of case that can be argued for any employer to nominate the sole bargaining agency of a trade union? I know that there is identity of interest on both sides of industry, to a given point, as I have argued for 15 years as a trade union official. But beyond that point the interests diverge. Any employer who suggests that he could even nominate the sole bargaining agency for his employees is presumptuous in the extreme.
If the Under-Secretary's explanation is not adequate and he does not resolve here and now the problem of the discrepancy between affording an employer the opportunity to nominate the bargaining agency and the definition of a bargaining agency in Clause 41, I shall keep him a long time on the issue. It is fundamental to the rights of people in industry that they should be able to determine the persons and organisations who shall represent them.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): There are perhaps some misunderstandings about the idea that employers should be entitled to apply for a reference to the N.I.R.C. The Government feel that it is right and proper that there should be provision for employers to be able to apply for references alongside trade unions and the Secretary of State. This is a means of getting problems sorted out by an independent body. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) laughs, but the C.I.R. is designated as an independent source. [Interruption.] We shall debate the C.I.R. at a different time. I am telling the Committee that it is an independent source. In effect, where there is difficulty the employer can put forward his case via the Industrial Relations Court to the C.I.R. and have matters sorted out for him. I stress to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) that this is not a question of nomination. It is a question of application. It raises the question of who should be the bargaining agent, but it is not the employer who will decide that.
The right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) asked what would happen where a registered union and a non-registered union competed in these circumstances, and whether the registered union would win. In effect, it is a decision that the C.I.R. will have to make. It might recommend the formation of a joint panel, but in due course the unregistered union could not enjoy the rights under Clause 46 unless it became registered.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman suggests that we might have a joint panel of registered and unregistered workers. What would happen if, at the end of the day, there were an official dispute and the panel decided to declare a strike? Are we to have a situation in which members of registered trade unions are protected by virtue of being registered but those belonging to an organisation of workers are not protected because they are not a registered trade union?

Mr. Dudley Smith: The panel could obtain recognition only if all its members were registered.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman is saying that in fact it would not be recognised.

Mr. Dudley Smith: As I said, I think that the C.I.R. could put this particular point forward.
The hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann), moved the Amendment fairly and I would have appreciated his point if we had not had the previous debate. I think he now sees that there are adequate provisions to eliminate any idea of tame trade unions. As we have said before, and as I now repeat, the C.I.R. is unlikely to recommend recognition of a tame union. My right hon. Friend has said that there is no intention on our part to encourage or to allow tame unions, but he is going to look at the matter further and establish the fact that independent organisations of workers will be the ones which will qualify.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he thinks there is no provision that stipulates a union nominated by an employer? He says that it is not a matter for nomination but for the C.I.R. In fact the provisions as they stand refer to
organisations of workers specified…
in the employers' organisation or negotiating panel. Does he confirm that it will be the employers who will be nominating the unions to be considered and that it is open to the employers to nominate unregistered unions because there is no provision in the Bill to restrict them from doing so?

Mr. Dudley Smith: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that. But it is for the C.I.R. to make a decision. My right hon. Friend made it clear in the last debate that the question of organisations of workers will be looked at in relation to their being independent. We maintain that the definition "independent" is the right one, but if the Committee feels that it is not the right definition we can discuss it on Clause 148. But I must point out that, if hon. Members feel that "independent" is wrong, in the Labour Government's Bill the term "independent" defined independent trade unions. I thought that that definition was appropriate.

Mr. Harold Walker: We must have one point to which the hon. Gentleman referred made quite clear. Will he make it clear, one way or the other, whether a joint negotiating body can be made up of registered and unregistered organisations of workers? He did say once that this could be so and then he seemed to leave the thing in the air.

Mr. Dudley Smith: It can be put forward in that way but it can only apply for statutory recognition if all the members are registered. That is the situation. We have taken the point put forward by the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) about tame unions and there is no intention to encourage them. My right hon. Friend will deal with this on Report. If the hon. Gentleman is still doubtful we can debate this on further occasions.
There are reasons why employers should be allowed to apply for references—very rare and complex situations in conditions of inter-union rivalry when an employer might legitimately wish to protect himself against either one or other of the unions not being willing to apply to the N.I.R.C. In that situation, with strife and chaos evolving, an employer might want to take action and make the application to the N.I.R.C. What we are trying to achieve is orderly procedures, and an improvement in industrial relations. In difficult circumstances, which may be comparatively rare, it is right that the employer should be able to make application. In view of the assurances given in a previous debate I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not find it necessary to press his Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: There is one point with which the hon. Gentleman has not dealt. Is there any reason why, in the circumstances he has outlined, in which an employer might wish to get this question clarified, he should not make a reference to the Secretary of State who could then make a reference to the Court if he considers the circumstances appropriate?

Mr. Dudley Smith: That would lead to a political decision and we do not think that is necessarily right. The various parties enumerated should be able to go to an independent organisation like the C.I.R. [Interruption.] That is my view and I am entitled to put it forward.

It is better for this to be decided upon by the C.I.R. in the circumstances.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: The reply to this short debate has been most unsatisfactory—in fact it has been pathetic. The Minister has not answered one point raised from this side of the Committee. I put my question to him again: what would happen if an employer referred to the Commission a case in which he had two trade unions operating in his establishment, one a registered trade union, the other an unregistered trade union, and the Commission decided that there should be a joint negotiating body composed of representatives in equal numbers from the registered and unregistered unions?
What would be the position of those organisations under this Clause? For example, if there were an industrial dispute, one would have the protection of the Bill and the other would be outside it. The whole of its funds would be at risk if it engaged in an industrial dispute. Is this not an impossible situation for any trade union to contemplate?
The Minister will not say that most of the unions would be registered, because my information is that the majority will not register, and as a consequence there will be all sorts of difficulties if we proceed along these lines. We are entitled to have an explanation of this Clause. If it were possible to psychoanalyse the mind of an employer then we would know the reason for the Clause—it enables an employer to make an application to the Commission for sole bargaining rights.
It seems that the friends of hon. Members opposite have told them that the motor car industry has to negotiate with 22 unions, whereas in Germany the negotiations are with one union. The motor car industry wants to know why it cannot negotiate with one union in this country. This is an attempt to get sole bargaining rights in the hands of one or two big unions.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who know nothing about industrial relations, cannot understand the evolution of the trade union movement in this country. In Germany the trade unions were restarted with a clean slate in 1945, on the advice of the British T.U.C. It was decided that there should be 12 trade unions and it was all planned. But in this country trade


unions have been evolving for 150 years. There was the growth of craft trade unions. Then with the great conurbations the great national institutions arose, and the industrial unions. With the rise of new industries came new unions with hundreds of different practices, different rules and so on. The trade union movement in Britain cannot be treated in the same way as the trade union movement in Germany. We did not start with a clean slate.
We are left with eleven million people organised on traditional lines. The trade union movement cannot be unified into one or two bargaining units in each factory because of its evolution. If the psychology behind this Bill is to try to coerce the trade union movement into bigger conurbations and so reduce the number of unions, it will not work.
The greatest factor against it working is that no one has continuity of employment. It might work with stable employment and if a man could be guaranteed his job throughout his working life. But electricians, clerical workers and draughtsmen may have between a dozen and 20 employers during their working life, there is no stability, and therefore there must be craft unions to cater for craftsmen who move from factory to factory and from institution to institution.
The Minister has not replied to the question raised by my hon. Friends of what the employer would do if he had the opportunity of nominating his bargaining unit. We have asked what would

happen to the company union, the staff association, the house union or the compliant union which, in the striking language of our American cousins, is called an organisation that signs "sweethearting" contracts with employers. As set out in the Clause, employers have the right to nominate this type of union to the Commission in the hope that it will be accepted as a stooge to negotiate in place of the real trade union.
In many establishments trade unions only have a foothold, where only 25 or 30 per cent. of the employees are organised, but the employers have to recognise their right to bargain at the moment. If they are given the opportunity of opting for something else, they will disregard the trade unions which are building up their membership.
It is sensible not to allow the employers to pick the agents they want who would accquiesce in their demands. The trade union movement is a movement of struggle. We do not ask for rights or privileges. We fought for our rights and privileges. We have sacrificed, starved and died for our privileges. We do not come cap in hand asking for privileges from the employers. We have reached our present establishment of eleven million organised workers by fighting for the rights of working people and we have established these rights by building up a strong organisation. This legislation is aimed at weakening the organisation, and I hope that my hon. Friends will divide the Committee on this issue.

10.30 p.m.

[MR. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

Mr. Loughlin: I am glad the Secretary of State has now come into the Chamber. He will be aware that I raised certain matters with the Under-Secretary of State, whose reply was inadequate. Indeed, he seemed reluctant to give way.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The hon. Gentleman must be fair. I gave way about five or six times. I rarely if ever speak in this House without giving way. If I do not give way, it is usually because of pressure of time.

Mr. Loughlin: I thought the hon. Gentleman gave way twice. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] At any rate, he refused to give way to me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah".] Well, we all think we should be given way to. HANSARD will prove how many times the hon. Gentleman gave way.
The hon. Gentleman argued that an employer should have the right to protect himself. Then he made the revealing statement that we were dealing with the right of trade unions to be the sole bargaining agency, and I quoted to him the definition of "sole bargaining agent" in Clause 41. Of course, the purpose of a trade union is to safeguard its members and, if it is to do so properly, obviously it has to be independent of the employers. Short of that situation, it cannot safeguard those rights.
What right has any employer to be the arbiter as to who should be the sole bargaining agent. [An HON. MEMBER: "He has not such a right."] But he nominates. I want to be brief, but I will try to explain the situation for hon. Gentlemen opposite. Clause 42 says
An application under this section may be made to the Industrial Court by any of the following parties that is to say—
(a) one or more trade unions…".
That is the issue. If the employer makes an application and the Industrial Court agrees, it means that the employer is the arbiter, as I argued in the first instance. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] Of course it does. I wish that hon. Gentlemen opposite would be a little sensible about this. I have been very lucky. I have been on the management side, as well as on the trade union side, and I was

on the former before I was a trade union official.

Mr. Scott: It is clear from Clause 45 that the only arbiter in this matter is the general wishes of the employees concerned. That is what is being built into this part of the Bill, and that is the only thing to be borne in mind.

Mr. Loughlin: I am dealing with Clause 42, which is three Clauses before Clause 45. I have been in this House for a long time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long".]—It may be too long for some hon. Members, but it is not too long for me, and I shall be here for many years more than some of those who have recently come into the House. I am more egotistical than some of the newcomers.
We are dealing with Clause 42. Once we pass this Clause and the Amendments to it. Clause 45 will be of no consequence. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me of any circumstances in which the employer has the right to determine which trade union organisation shall be the sole bargaining agency in the unit?

Mr. R. Carr: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the answer is "No"; nor does the Bill provide for that.

Mr. Loughlin: That is what the Bill says. We have met this problem time and again. I should like to know the legal definition of "an employer". The sooner the right hon. Gentleman withdraws the Bill on the ground that it is incomprehensible to the ordinary person, or that the words in the Bill are indefinite and indecisive, the better it will be for us all.

Mr. Heller: I think that we should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) for putting down these Amendments, because they have revealed once again that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite either do not understand their Bill, or they have got themselves into an extremely confused situation.
In replying to the debate the Minister said that we could have a joint panel of either registered or unregistered trade unions—meaning organisations of workers, a mix, a joint panel. I want the hon. Gentleman to repeat what he said.


Is that what he means? Is that the position? If he does mean that, then he does not understand the Bill, because the Bill does not say anything of the kind, and this is one further example of the complete confusion into which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are getting the Committee and the country with this Measure.
A little earlier, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) who raised a point about "independent" and said that an organisation of workers could be recognised as a sole bargaining agent, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government do not really mean that, because once it becomes the sole bargaining agent it must be a registered trade union. The Bill does not say that.

The Solicitor-General: The distinction, which is plain throughout, and consistent with the point of principle made by my right hon. Friend is that the Commission is encouraged to put forward a union, or an organisation of workers, a joint panel, one or the other, registered or unregistered, of the unions and organisations to be found in the plant or unit. The Commission is encouraged to put forward whatever solution seems most likely to produce a reasonable bargaining situation. That is the position arrived at up till Clause 45. The only point at which those bodies must register is when under Clause 46, whether separately or jointly, they seek to claim their new statutory rights to enforce that solution upon that employer. It is at that point that Clause 46 requires them to be registered, entirely consistently with the proposition that the new rights should be in line with registration.

Mr. Heffer: That is fine. Let us suppose that this procedure is followed whereby an organisation of workers, because the application has been made by the employer or by the Secretary of State, is referred to the C.I.R. and the C.I.R. decides that it should be recognised as the sole bargaining agent. Then the Solicitor-General says that under Clause 46 at that stage it must become a registered trade union. Let us suppose we have gone right through this procedure and the organisation represents a great body of opinion amongst the workers; it has the majority in the ballot. What happens if the organisation decides that

it does not want to become a registered trade union? Hon. Gentlemen reveal stage by stage how impossibly idiotic the Bill is.

The Solicitor-General: Before that organisation can then claim the new statutory right, it is required to register. That is entirely consistent with the principle my right hon. Friend enunciated and with the principle set out in paragraph 109 of "In Place of Strife".
The Industrial Relations Bill will therefore propose that trade unions should register with a new Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations within a prescribed period.… Refusal will lay a trade union open to a financial penalty by the Industrial Board.
We believe that rather than impose financial penalties upon unions that fail to register it is right to encourage them to do so by giving them the benefit of the new statutory position.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. and learned Gentleman is like the rabbit before the stoat; every time he thinks about "In Place of Strife" he is petrified. He cannot get beyond thinking about "In Place of Strife". I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman begins to think about his Bill, because it is his Bill that is being put before the country and which will apply to the trade union movement. I therefore suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman answers the points that arise on the Bill. I should like answers to the points which have been raised by my hon. Friends and which have not been satisfactorily answered.
I ask my hon. Friends to vote for these Amendments, because the Amendments are absolutely right.
In his Amendment my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) says that we should eliminate the employer. I agree entirely. [Laughter.] It seems that many employers are eliminating themselves by bad management. Perhaps we will not need to put them out of business, because they are putting themselves out of business. I am talking about the words "an employer", which the Amendment proposes to delete. It should be removed because as long as it is in the Bill there must be the suspicion in the mind of the entire trade union movement that it is possible for an employer to make an


application for a tame union, a house union or a company union, whatever it may be called, which is acceptable to the employer and to no one else. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is wrong."] If we are wrong, why have the provision in the Bill? Why not accept the Amendment? If our suspicions are unjustified, get rid of them by deleting this provision.

Mr. Loughlin: The Ministers should read their own Bill.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Heffer: If the purpose is not to make provision for the possible acceptance of house unions, would the Minister give the reasons why an employer must make the application or can make the application? If the purpose is not to assist a house, company or tame union, why not allow the organisation of workers to make the application in addition to the trade union? That is the fundamental question. It has not been answered and I should like to hear a positive answer to it.

Mr. R. Carr: I forget whether the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was here, but if he was he must have forgotten that earlier this evening I gave an undertaking that I would make it clear—I think it is clear, but if there is any doubt I will make it doubly clear—by introducing an Amendment in the appropriate place saying that the C.I.R. cannot recommend as sole bargaining agent anything but an independent organisation—

Mr. Loughlin: Why not set it out in the Bill?

Mr. Carr: I will not accept the Amendment because we believe that employers as well as trade unions and the Secretary of State should have the right to initiate this procedure. We have explained why we think that three parties—the Secretary of State, the trade union and the employer—should have the right to initiate this procedure. Although I believe it is sure, I am prepared to make it doubly sure that the C.I.R. cannot recommend other than an independent organisation of workers as the sole bargaining agent. I think that that is the assurance for which the Opposition ask.

Mr. Heffer: It is not.

Mr. McNamara: I am not sure whether the Secretary of State has given way or not, but what he has said is that he will give an undertaking that the C.I.R. will recognise only an independent organisation of workers as the sole bargaining agent. Unfortunately, he was not in the Chamber when this commotion was started by the Under-Secretary of State. We want to know what the right hon. Gentleman means by an "organisation of workers". Does he mean a registered trade union? Confusion has been worse confounded by three contradictory statements. The first came from the Under-Secretary of State. Then the Solicitor-General made his unhelpful contribution and said that it could be recognised as the sole bargaining agent but when it started to exercise its rights it would have to register. Then the Secretary of State spoke.
We should have an answer to this point. If the Secretary of State cannot give it, there is only one other Minister who has not spoken, and that is the Minister of State. Perhaps he could throw in his hat and let us know the answer.

Mr. Carr: It is a pity that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) does not listen or does not want to hear, but this point has been answered several times this evening. However, I will answer it again. We have said that we see no reason why the C.I.R. should not put forward for recognition as a sole bargaining agent an unregistered organisation of workers providing it is an independent one. If that unregistered organisation of workers which has been put forward by the C.I.R. for recognition then wishes to take its legal right under this Clause it must get itself registered. If it does not, it has its rights but not the legal sanctification and strength behind it, because it should be a registered body to take this extra legal right. The only object of allowing the C.I.R. to put forward an unregistered organisation as long as it is independent, is to give the opportunity to such a body to move into that position. Then if it wishes its de facto position to be strengthened by the new statutory right, it must get itself registered.

Mr. Harold Walker: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he has missed the point. The Under-Secretary, when


replying earlier to my hon. Friend, said that a joint negotiating panel could consist of a mix of both registered and unregistered unions. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is asking whether we are to understand that this is the case or did the Under-Secretary make, perhaps, a pardonable slip of the tongue or an error.

Mr. McNamara: I have obtained from HANSARD a proof copy of what was said by the Under-Secretary. He said:
The panel…
that is, the joint panel—
…could only obtain recognition if all its members were registered.
I was saying that the hon. Gentleman was saying that it would not be recognised. The Under-Secretary has said that the C.I.R. could put this point forward.

Mr. R. Carr: That is absolutely right.

Mr. McNamara: We do not know where we are. The right hon. Gentleman is saying "Absolutely right", and I am saying that the Under-Secretary said:
The panel could only obtain recognition if all its members were registered.
That presumably means that a joint panel coming from a factory could only be recognised if all its members were in registered trade unions. Immediately after my interjection, the Under-Secretary says that that is not a fact. Now he says that if they do that and we have one which is unregistered recognised, when it comes to the question of being recognised and exercising any powers it has by virtue of being recognised, it cannot exercise those powers because it is unregistered. This is nonsense.

Mr. R. Carr: It is not nonsense. First, let me deal with the case of a single body recommended for recognition. If that body wishes then to acquire the new statutory right to recognition, it must get itself registered. The C.I.R. can also put forward a joint panel as its proposed bargaining agent. If that joint panel contains any unregistered members, then if that joint panel wants to have its statutory right to recognition—as opposed to any de facto right it may enjoy—all its members must be registered. If a bargaining agent, either a single organisation or a joint panel, thinks it of value

to have this new statutory right to recognition, then it must be registered.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear what an organisation of workers recommended by the C.I.R. under Clause 45 would need to do to have the statutory rights to which he refers? Would it still have the right to make collective bargains legally enforceable on behalf of the employees concerned? Whether or not the matter went to the court under Clause 46, what requirements for registration arise under Clause 47?
Perhaps I have not made myself clear. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the sole bargaining agent recommended by the C.I.R. under Clause 45 would have the power to make legally enforceable bargains, and that it would not be necessary for it to become registered?

Mr. R. Carr: I am not sure that I have followed the hon. Gentleman's point? I think that the answer to his question is "Yes". The body could have the right, if it wished, to make a legally binding agreement without having to have its statutory right.

Mr. Sillars: I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General saying that under Clause 46 an unregistered organisation could not make an application. Clause 46(1)(b) says:
…the trade union or joint negotiating panel, as the case may be, may make an application to the Industrial Court under this section.
The words used are "joint negotiating panel", and they are extremely important. There is a vast difference between those words and the words "joint negotiating panel of trade unions", which deal with registered organisations.
Are we to take it that an unregistered organisation cannot make application to the court to have an agreement imposed which gives it sole bargaining rights, but that an unregistered organisation can make application to the court in respect of a registered organisation? That is what the Clause seems to mean. We are entitled to an explanation.

Mr. Orme: If the Secretary of State says that he is looking into the possibility of meeting the point raised about the independent organisation of workers at the C.I.R. end, what is his objection


to meeting it at the beginning? If that body is not to have any standing before the C.I.R. and will be ruled out, why should it be possible for that organisation to be sent there by an employers' body?
Then we have all this confusion about joint negotiating bodies, unions which are registered, and unions which are not registered. I can see the intention here. There might be mixed bodies of registered and unregistered unions, but, as Clause 46 says, it will not be possible for the unregistered bodies to operate. I get that message clearly. But why is the Minister still reticent about the employers' attitude? He has heard from my hon. Friends how we feel that employers have no right to refer a trade union in the first place. What is it to do with an employer? We have made that point. We say that the employer has no right, and we remind the Government of the way in which, in the United States, this principle has been used continuously to refer bogus organisations solely in order to clog the machinery and stop the recognition of bona fide trade unions.

The Solicitor-General: Although the hon. Gentleman has valiantly criticised these proposals, I think that he has put himself on record as saying that the Bill published by the last Government was a good one. Will he explain—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. I have now heard the Solicitor-General refer at least a dozen times to a Bill which is not before the Committee. He persists in going into the details of a Bill which is not before us. May I ask you, Mr. Mallalieu, to rule that even the hon. and learned Gentleman is not allowed to discuss not only a Clause or Amendment which is not before the Committee, but a Bill which was not even presented to the House?

11.0 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Loughlin: Further to that—

The Temporary Chairman: This is not a point of order.

Mr. Loughlin: May I say that it is, with all due respect to you—

Hon. Members: Wasting time.

Mr. Loughlin: Shut up. I do not want to delay the Committee because we have a lot of work to do, but it is surely in order on a point of order for—

The Temporary Chairman: I have ruled that that is not a point of order. Mr. Orme—

Mr. Loughlin: Mr. Loughlin rose——

The Temporary Chairman: I have called Mr. Orme.

Mr. Loughlin: I am sorry. I did not realise that.

Mr. Orme: If the Solicitor-General repeats that statement outside I know what action to take. Can he quote the point he makes about the previous Bill? We are not discussing it. I have been highly critical of some past actions, but the Opposition are united in opposing the present proposals and nothing he and his hon. Friends are doing to try to drive a wedge will succeed because we find their proposals completely nauseating.

The Solicitor-General: The Solicitor-General rose——

Mr. Loughlin: Just clear the matter up.

The Solicitor-General: If I may put the question, notwithstanding the intermittent observations of an occasional visitor from Cardiff, South-East. In reply to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), it is the case that the last Government's Bill recognised the right—

Hon. Members: Oh.

The Solicitor-General: —of an employer to restrict the choice of trade unions——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Mallalicu. We want you to look at this again. Here we have the Solicitor-General not mentioning a Bill in passing but quoting from a Bill, and not for the first time, but continuously quoting a Bill which is not before the House and which has not been before the House. Is it in order on a Bill at Committee stage for the Solicitor-General or anyone else to do this? 1 have been told that one can discuss in Committee only what is on the Order Paper and


selected by the Chair at the time, an Amendment or Clause to a Bill which has received its Second Reading. The Bill the Solicitor-General keeps quoting has never received a Second Reading.

The Temporary Chairman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General has not quoted from anything which is not relevant to anything going on in Committee at the present time.

Mr. Loughlin: Further to that point of order. Do I take it that once I am called in this debate I am entitled to discuss any Bill that might have been proposed in this House which has not received its Second Reading?

The Temporary Chairman: I hope the hon. Member will always refer to things which are relevant. That the Solicitor-General has done.

Mr. Orme: I hope the Solicitor-General will withdraw the remarks he is trying to attribute to me, which are not correct. I would ask the Solicitor-General and the Minister, instead of laughing about this matter, to answer the questions posed by my right hon. and hon. Friends. We are entitled to have answers to these questions tonight. We have had utter confusion from the Government; they have delayed the debate by not being able to answer the questions which we have posed. I call on the Solicitor-General or the right hon. Gentleman to stand up now and to answer the points which have been put.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: The Secretary of State knows that he is on a hook. We are not going to give the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of getting off it so easily. We want a reply to the question which has been put. I shall put it again. I hope that I shall not be ruled out of order for repetition. If a registered and an unregistered trade union each had an equal number of employees in membership and the Commission decided to set up a joint negotiating committee, would both the registered and the unregistered trade union have recognition from the employer? If they have de facto recognition, would any agreement which they entered into be valid for the members of both the registered and the unregistered trade union? If an unregistered trade union is a valid union for negotiating and obtaining wage increases,

what is the purpose of registration; what are the disabilities?
Will the right hon. Gentleman or the Solicitor-General clear up this confusion, because we have had contradictory statements? The Government owe it to the Committee to say where they stand on this issue.

Mr. R. Carr: I shall try again. The unregistered body has bargaining rights. It does not have to be registered to have bargaining rights. It has to be registered to have certain additional rights, including the statutory right to compel the employer to recognise and negotiate with it. If a union does not wish to have that extra statutory right, then in this context there is no need for it to be registered. If it does want this extra statutory right, there is the need to be registered.

Mrs. Castle: The position is clear. It means that if the machinery has been gone through for deciding the ideal bargaining unit and the ideal bargaining agent or group of organisations for that unit—the C.I.R. has examined the situation and made a recommendation, there has been a ballot and the vote of the workers has been obtained—and the result is a panel consisting of a registered and an unregistered union, then that ideal bargaining unit must collapse if the unregistered union refuses to register— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course it must, because the joint negotiating panel will no longer exist. It will have been divided by this arbitrary law.
I suggest that we do not waste any more time on the nonsense of this Government. Let us vote for the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 257, Noes 288.

[For Division List 135 see col. 455.]

The Temporary Chairman: The next Amendment is No. 717, in page 30, line 6, at end, add:
(d) an employers' organisation on behalf of one or more of its members.
standing in the name of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton).

Mr. Tom Normanton: Amendment No. 717 is a twin to an


Amendment in similar terms which I moved to Clause 35 and which was rejected by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. It therefore, I sincerely regret to say, stands isolated and is now of relatively small relevance to the major theme we are debating. Without in any way minimising or with-drawing anything I said in moving the Amendment to Clause 35, or minimising what I still believe to be relevant in Amendment No. 717, I feel that I have no alternative but not to move it.

Mr. R. Carr: I beg to move Amendment No. 714: In page 31, line 11, at end insert:
(5) The Industrial Court shall not entertain an application made under this section otherwise than by the Secretary of State unless, before the application was made notice of the proposal to make it had been given to the Secretary of State; and where such a notice has been given —

(a) the Secretary of State shall offer such advice and assistance to the party or parties giving the notice and to such other parties as appear to him to be directly concerned, as he may consider appropriate with a view to promoting agreement between them with respect to the matters to which the application would relate and for that purpose may refer any question relating to those matters to the Commission for examination by them, but
(b) nothing in the preceding paragraph shall prevent the party or parties giving the notice from making an application under this section at any time after the notice has been given.

The effect is to provide that the National Industrial Relations Court shall not entertain any application under Clause 42 unless notice of the application has first been made to the Secretary of State, who will thus be given the opportunity to conciliate. It is complementary to the similar Amendment which I moved to Clause 35. The purpose is simply to emphasise that statutory references should be seen as a last resort after voluntary efforts, including conciliation by my Department, have failed, and therefore the objective is to avoid unnecessary references to the Court and onwards to the C.I.R.
The Amendment was prompted by a suggestion made to me by Mr. George Woodcock and I have heard from him that he much welcomes the fact that I have felt able to put it on the Order Paper.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 290, Noes 254.

[For Division List 136 see col. 461.]

Question put, That the Clause, amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 288, Noes, 257.

[For Division List 137 see col. 465.]

Clause 42, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 43

REFERENCE TO COMMISSION ON APPLICATION UNDER S. 42

11.45 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I beg to move Amendment No. 509: In page 31, line 40, at end add:
(4) The question to be determined by the Commission and to be specified, under this section, by the Industrial Court shall include the following matters—

(a) the bargaining unit, or bargaining units, which should, in the view of the Commission, be recognised by the employer, or by the two or more associated employers, and
(b) the organisation of workers or the joint negotiating panel which should, in the view of the Commission, be recognised by the employer, or by the two or more associated employers, as sole bargaining agent for that bargaining unit or for each of those bargaining units.

The Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to take with this Amendment Amendments No. 524, in line 40, at end add:
(4) The question to be specified by the Industrial Court under this section shall include the following matters for determination by the Commission—

(a)the bargaining unit, or bargaining units, which should, m the view of the Commission, be recognised by the employer, or by the two or more associated employers, and
(b) the organisation of workers or the joint negotiating panel which should, in the view of the Commission, be recognised by the employer, or by the two or more associated employers, as sole bargaining agent for that bargaining unit or for each of those bargaining units.

No. 510, in Clause 45, page 33, line 20, at end insert:
(3) A report of the Commission under this section shall not recommend that a bargaining unit should be recognised by the employer, or by the two or more associated employers, if both professional employees and employees who are not professional employees are comprised in that bargaining unit unless it appears to the Commission—

(a) that this would be in accordance with the general wishes of the professional employees comprised in that bargaining unit, and
(b) that it would promote a lasting and satisfactory settlement of the question in issue in the reference.

No. 511, in line 29, at end insert:
(5) In the performance of their functions under this section the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of a professional employee being represented in collective bargaining, if he so desires, by an organisation whose members are wholly professional persons or by a joint negotiating panel which includes at least one such organisation.

No. 526, in line 29, at end insert:
(5) In the performance of their functions under this section the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of a professional employee being represented in collective bargaining, if he so desires, by an organisation of which all the members are professional persons or by a joint negotiating panel which includes at least one such organisation.

No. 527, in line 30, leave out 'subsection (3)' and insert:
'subsection (4) and subsection (5)'.

No. 656, in line 39, at end insert:
(c) whether it represents workers who by virtue of their profession or the nature of their employment have such special responsibility towards the public or their employers that they ought to be separately represented.

No. 513, in Clause 48, page 36, line 9, after 'unit', insert:
'or in the particular section of it to which the applicant belongs'.

No. 514, in Clause 49, page 36, line 40, at end insert:
(4) In the performance of their functions under this section the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of a professional employee being represented in collective bargaining, if he so desires, by an organisation whose members are wholly professional persons or by a joint negotiating panel which includes at least one such organisation.

No. 529, in page 36, line 40, at end insert:
(4) In the performance of their functions under this section the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of a professional employee being represented in collective bargaining, if he so desires, by an organisation

of which all the members are professional persons or by a joint negotiating panel which includes at least one such organisation.

No. 518, in Clause 148, page 103, line 12, at end insert:
'Professional person' means a person—

(a) who holds a professional qualification related to the work in which he is engaged being a qualification conferred by a professional qualifying body, and
(b) who is required to abide by rules of professional conduct placing upon him a particular responsibility for the safeguard of the public interest

and shall include a worker who is performing related work under the supervision of a professional person with the intention of obtaining such professional qualification.
'Professional qualifying body' means any body which confers qualifications recognising the possession by the holder of knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of intellectual instruction and study in or with an institution of higher learning or a hospital as distinguished from a general academic education or from an apprenticeship or training in the performance of routine mental, manual or physical processes.
'Professional employee' means a professional person who is a worker.

No. 533, in page 103, line 12, at end insert:
'Professional person' means a person—

(a) who holds a professional qualification related to the work in which he is engaged being a qualification conferred by a professional qualifying body, and
(b) who is required to abide by rules of professional conduct placing upon him a particular responsibility for the safeguard of the public interest

and shall include a worker who is performing related work under the supervision of a professional person with the intention of obtaining such professional qualification.
'Professional qualifying body' means a body which confers qualifications legally or customarily necessary for engaging in occupations involving a high degree of judgment and special knowledge and which are conferred after completion of prescribed courses of intellectual disciplines and after examination.
'Professional employee' means a professional person who is a worker.

11.45 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I think that the Amendment is quite clear. It is in my name, but there is a large measure of support for it from my hon. Friends, and in view of the lateness of the hour all I want to know is whether the Secretary of State will accept it. As I am restraining myself from making a speech, I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment.

Mr. R. Carr: The brevity of my hon. Friend puts me in a testing position. I cannot be quite as brief, nor can I go as far as my hon. Friend would like me to and accept these Amendments, but I hope that I can, nevertheless, say something which will be of considerable help to my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward), to many other of my hon. Friends, to, I hope, some hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to many people outside the House who share the views and motives which have led my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to table these Amendments.
I understand and appreciate the reason why it is felt that the agency shop and bargaining unit provisions as they stand should include some special safeguards for professionally qualified people. I have received representations on this point from a number of quarters, and I have listened carefully to them, but I do not think that it is possible for the Government to accept these Amendments in the form in which they have been put forward, because I am convinced that in this form they could jeopardise one of the fundamental aims of the Bill; namely, the need to avoid fragmentation of the bargaining structure, which is one of the problems in industry, and one which we must not aggravate.
I also have very much in mind the fact that whereas the professional workers have a problem, with which I have some sympathy, that problem arises not so much from the fact that they are professional workers, as from the fact that in the circumstances which concern them they are quite small minorities embedded in a larger majority in a working group. Therefore, as I said briefly the other night, anything we do to help here must really be something which is designed to help not only professional workers, and not primarily because they are professional workers, but to make sure that in dealing with bargaining structure, appointing bargaining units and agents, we take proper account of minorities of workers, whoever they may be, embedded in a larger group of workers of a different nature, with different interests, different purposes and functions. So we must tackle it from that point of view.
It is and must be the responsibility of the C.I.R. to determine, in the light of all the circumstances, what is likely to

prove the most acceptable, satisfactory and lasting solution to disputes about the bargaining unit and the bargaining agent. Experience both in this country and certainly in North America amply confirms the conclusion that hard and fast rules or criteria make it more difficult rather than easier to resolve the wide range of problems that arise.
Therefore, I do not wish to tie the hands of the C.I.R. by writing strict criteria into the Bill; nor shall we do so. I believe that when we bring forward our code of practice we can give sensible guidance within it which can bear on this problem; but, although influential, the code of practice will be much less rigidly binding than criteria written into the Bill.
What it is essential to ensure is that, dependent as we shall be upon the wisdom, skill and foresight of the C.I.R., the C.I.R. in its composition is fully representative of people with experience of all the problems with which they have to deal. Although it would be wrong to set up the C.I.R. or any similar body on a strictly representative basis, and I do not want to have on the C.I.R. people who are there as members for this interest of that interest—that would be wrong—nevertheless it is important to ensure that the C.I.R. includes amongst its membership those who are experienced in all these matters.
It will be my intention to ensure that the C.I.R. contains amongst its membership one or more members who will be fully conversant with the needs, problems, ethics, functions and all the rest, of professional workers of all kinds.
I am also prepared to consider very carefully the possibility of moving on Report an Amendment—not to this Clause, but to Clause 45—which could offer some further guidance to the C.I.R. in deciding the scope of appropriate bargaining units. Clause 45(4) specifies two matters which the C.I.R. must in particular consider in determining matters concerning the recognition of an organisation of workers or a joint panel as sole bargaining agent. My Amendment would require the C.I.R., in determining whether to make such a recommendation, also to have regard to the minorities which may be in a bargaining unit which it is considering and to the community of interests of different descriptions of


employees, the nature of the work which these different groups perform, their training, experience and responsibilities, as well as any other matters which the C.I.R. might consider relevant. If when we reach Clause 45 we give that direction to the C.I.R. and we ensure that the C.I.R. is fully representative in its membership, I believe that, without tying its hands, we can give the guidance to the C.I.R. which is necessary to ensure that the interests, not only of professional workers, although of course including professional workers, but also of other minority groups of workers can be properly regarded within the determination of a bargaining unit and the recommendations which the C.I.R. may make about bargaining agents.
Although I cannot accept these Amendments, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that, if I were in Clause 45 to do something along the lines I have suggested and take care of the matter in the code of practice and in the membership of the C.I.R., we would in all reasonable ways be meeting the genuine needs both of professional workers and of any other minority groups of workers embedded in their bargaining units.

Mr. Ashton: The right hon. Gentleman has given a peculiar answer. I welcomed the first part of his speech when he said that he could not accept the Amendment, but it is peculiar of him to talk about Clause 45 on Report when we are going through it under the guillotine in Committee in five minutes' time. The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) put down her Amendment because of the Tyneside lock-out of my union, D.A.T.A., and the position of the United Kingdom Association of Professional Engineers.
We maintain that D.A.T.A. can recruit up to the top level of chief draughtsmen and high technicians and is perfectly able to negotiate on their behalf. For many years we have never advocated that top executives should join our union, although they have had the benefits of its negotiations in that there has never been a pay increase yet to lower management or technical grades in which the same percentage has not gone to other management grades. If we obtained 10 per cent. increase in pay, these chief draughtsmen and others also obtained

10 per cent. to maintain differentials. The maintenance of differentials is built into trade union structure and the vast majority of engineers were satisfied with that until 18 months ago, when the U.K.A.P.E. was set up.
We believe that it is a bosses' union and is financed by bosses' money. It has had a rapid rate of growth to about 30,000 members in the past 18 months. Top class executives are travelling round the country recruiting for it, and someone obviously is paying their salaries and expenses because a campaign of starting off a union through its initial stages costs money. A great deal of time, money and effort is required.
We think that this is being done for one purpose—to put it bluntly, so that U.K.A.P.E. members can act as strikebreakers, not as blacklegs during a strike because blacklegs have to belong to a union to be classed as that. The members of the U.K.A.P.E. can keep the wheels turning when the rest of the factory is on strike.
The technicians in industry have a great deal of power because they recruit up to a high level of management. Because of the nature of the job, technical work has to be put into a pipeline, so that drawings done today, for example, will often not reach the shop floor for two months. So if draughtsmen go on strike, it is possible by using the existing supply in the pipeline to keep the shop floor going for as long as two months. We therefore have to pay a high rate of strike pay of £27 10s. a week so that the men can survive, and we have to ensure that no sub-contracting takes place to another firm or ensure that there is insufficient management left in the factory to keep the place going.
The U.K.A.P.E. virtually says, "No strikes". We had representatives of the organisation visit this House about a month ago, when some of them said that they were proud that they could keep works going and that it was their public duty to maintain them while an official dispute was on. [Interruption.] We now see the difference between the two sides of the Committee. When we pointed out to these people that they were, in effect, prolonging the dispute by enabling the plant to continue with a skeleton staff, they shrugged their shoulders and said


"So what?". That is their attitude—and not one that they are entitled to more money because they are professionals, since under D.A.T.A., which negotiates for everyone at a plant, they get their increases.
The U.K.A.P.E. is a bosses' union designed to break strikes. As I have said, because of the nature of the job it is necessary to keep a long pipeline going, and if there is a skeleton staff during a strike, that strike takes very much longer than necessary. That is why we refuse to work with the U.K.A.P.E. It is why D.A.T.A. was locked out at Parsons, near the constituency of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth, but finall Parsons had to agree that D.A.T.A. would have sole negotiating rights.

Dame Irene Ward: Dame Irene Ward rose——

Mr. Ashton: I am sorry, but the hon. Lady moved the Amendment. I would give way if we did not have the guillotine. The Government imposed it. We did not. Of necessity, we had to exert pressure on Parsons and suffer a lockout and a cost to our funds of about £200,000 to try to solve the problem and work for the sole negotiating rights we believed necessary. If this Amendment and a series of others were made, it would create chaos. It would not improve industrial relations or stop threatened disputes but would lead to more lock-out than there have been in the past.

It being Twelve o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [25th and 27th January], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The Chairman: The Question is—

Dame Irene Ward: Dame Irene Ward rose—

The Chairman: Order.

Dame Irene Ward: Dame Irene Ward rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

The Chairman: The Question is, That the Amendment be made.

Dame Irene Ward: In view of what has been said from both sides of the

Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The Chairman: The Question is, That the Amendment be made.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Twelve o'clock.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 289, Noes 258.

[For Division List 138 see col. 469.]

Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 44 to 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47

ORDER OF INDUSTRIAL COURT FOR RECOG NITION OF SOLE BARGAINING AGENT

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 287, Noes 258.

[For Division List 139 see col. 473.]

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48

APPLICATION TO INDUSTRIAL COURT WITH A VIEW TO WITHDRAWAL OF RECO GNITION

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 287, Noes 258.

[For Division List 140 see col. 479.]

Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 49 and 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51

UNFAIR INDUSTRIAL PRACTICES IN CON NECTION WITH COLLECTIVE BARGAIN ING PROCEDURES.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 286, Noes 258.

[For Division 141 see col. 483.]

Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 52 to 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56

MACHINERY FOR NEGOTIATION UNDER OTHER ENACTMENTS

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 283. Noes 258.

[For Division List 142 see col. 487.]

Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to the Order of the House of 25th January.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

VEHICLE (EXCISE) BILL [Lords]

HYDROCARBON OIL (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) BILL [Lords]

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time this day.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (NORTHERN REGION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Eyre.]

12.59 a.m.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: I am grateful for the opportunity of raising this very important question of the need to expand educational opportunities in the Northern Region. We talk a good deal about attracting new industry and creating new job opportunities, and sometimes we are apt to overlook the fact that education has a vital part to play in regional development.
The Northern Region, for which I have the honour to speak tonight, has in the past made a tremendous contribution to the prosperity of Britain by the inventive genius of its people, coupled with hard, skilful work done in the pits, in the shipyards, in the iron and steel works, and in heavy industries. We are undergoing great changes, with not a little success. Much has been achieved in recent years. During the past five years our roads programme has transformed communications throughout the whole region.
I came across some statistics recently which greatly interested me and which are relevant to this subject. Two-thirds of the hourly paid workers in the Northern Region are now employed in new industries, as against 40 per cent. only seven years ago. I say this because I do not want people to think that the Northern Region has only a depressing or black picture to present. Indeed, there are sectors of our educational development which compare favourably with those achieved anywhere in the country. Nevertheless, there is much to be done and I believe that education can be the key to our achieving parity with other areas, and in this the Government have direct responsibility.
The Northern Region, despite high unemployment rates, is still short of certain grades of personnel. Every year hundreds of our schoolchildren leave school at the statutory age and write themselves off far below their full potential. A tragically high proportion—83·9 per cent.—of our school leavers go straight to employment and take no part in higher education. In 1964—when I saw this figure I could hardly believe it—only 24.2 per cent. of


the children in the Northern Region stayed on at school after the statutory leaving age. That figure had increased to 44·9 per cent. by 1969. I know that the latest figure will reveal an even greater proportion staying on.
We welcome this vast improvement—it is almost double—in five years under the Labour Administration, but it is still 10 per cent. below the national average, and we will not be satisfied until we match the figure applying for the rest of the nation.
I could say much about polytechnics, colleges of education, the university at Tees-side, and so on, but in this short debate I will concentrate on education up to the age of 18 and I will deal in the main with the question of provision in schools.
There is a desperate need for nursery school provision. Far too many children in the whole country—this certainly applies to the Northern Region—begin their school life deprived and handicapped because they have limited access to the spoken word, to books, to pictures, to the kind of environment that would give them a good start in life. I appreciate the contribution made by voluntary playgroups, private nurseries, child minders, and so on, but the need can be met only by a massive extension of local authority nursery schools, particularly in the priority areas.
I want to make a controversial proposal, although I am confident that the Minister will consider it. I am a teacher and a member of the teachers' union. I have had experience of teaching in a primary school and then of being head of a large primary school in the north. If the alternatives are waiting for years to come for purpose-built nursery schools staffed by fully qualified teachers or using facilities now available, improved by minor works allocation and staffed by qualified teachers available, assisted by ancillaries and even with the help of parents, the latter must have preference. Unless we can do something big and do it now, generations of our schoolchildren will continue to be deprived.
The Northern Region received one-ninth of the national allocation for educational priority areas. This in itself is an indication of the leeway that has to be made up in the region. I was

told by the Minister last week that we have 3,877 primary school classes with over 35 pupils, which means that far too many of our children are denied the individual attention so necessary if they are to receive the education they deserve.
In 1968 a total 45·9 per cent. of our primary schools had been built pre-1902, despite the expenditure by the Labour Government of over £15 million on the primary school building programme. There is no doubt that massive resources are required, including allocation of teachers and the minor works programme. An indication of the willingness of local education authorities to do their share is shown by the expenditure on books, equipment, and so on, for it is higher in the Northern Region than in many others.
It is at secondary level that we really see the results of the economic history and social character of the region. Despite the fact that the building programme has doubled in the last six years, we urgently need purpose-built comprehensive schools offering a wide variety of course and making possible the supply of well-educated youngsters so vital to the future of the region. Early leaving has been a particular problem in the North, and the whole educational service is the poorer because so many children leave as soon as they reach the statutory age. Fewer children staying on means a smaller building programme because the sixth forms are smaller. The basic need element that has governed the building programmes for so long is less than in the more prosperous parts. Early leaving means fewer children going on to higher education and poorer overall secondary provision because the older the child the more units he represents in assessing rate support grant.
I have become convinced that one of the reasons is the mania that we have for labelling our children. If one labels a child "B" or "C"—it is sometimes done in the infants' school—and that label carries on, and both parents and child are aware of it throughout the school career, can one wonder that when the child is 15 both he and his parents are convinced that the best thing he can do is get away from school and begin work? There is far too much selection in our schools, and, of course, far too much selection and segregation outside them.


In the north far too many parents—1 say this as a practising school master—are far to willing to accept the verdict of the school and the label placed on their child. That is why so many of our children are leaving without realising their full potential. Education was developed in the region to serve the traditional industries where the worker learnt his trade in the job. Apprenticeships have been a strong feature, and they had to be taken up before the 16th birthday. Many children were forced to leave school in order to supplement the family income.
I say without fear of contradiction that we have penalised and punished the average and below average children for generations, and now we must give them justice by abolishing privileged selective schools. It is no crime to involve parents by reminding them that education is the key very often to better job prospects and a better living standard. If there is a choice, the community must choose in favour of those hitherto under-privileged.
I want particularly to mention maintenance grants. I know that maintenance grants for children staying on at school are discretionary. It is about time we made them mandatory to ensure parity between the various areas of the country. I asked a widow, who had two children at secondary school both likely to go on to higher education, to apply for a maintenance grant. When she filled in the form I was amazed at the scales laid down. The maximum grant payable to a 16-year-old child is £115 per annum, and for a 17– or 18-year-old boy the maximum is £140 per annum. One must have less than £450 a year net income to obtain the maximum grant. That is not being fair to our children. There ought now to be a mandatory system, a national rate, and this ought to be taken over in the same way as higher education grants and so on.
There is no doubt that much can be done for the schools. I could take the Minister to a school in my region which I know well. It is a neighbourhood comprehensive school. I know what is often said about neighbourhood schools. It serves two council housing estates. The numbers staying on at the school represent a figure well above the national average. That is so because the school offers facilities superior to many grammar schools. It has a dedicated staff who offer

a wide variety of courses. The courses are practical, realistic and vocational. There was a time when I was against vocational courses in schools. As chairman of an education authority I was asked about typewriting, and I said that typewriting had nothing educational about it. But when I have seen girls doing typewriting and so on, I have seen their attitude to school change completely. I have seen boys doing courses relevant to what they want to do when they leave school, and their whole attitude changes. I am fully converted to that kind of education.
The Northern Economic Planning Council, in a very interesting document called "Education" published early last year, made a strong plea for the Northern Region to be given special status for education. It suggested a 10-year programme under which we would have discriminatory treatment similar to that of the road programme initiated by the previous Government. The Council is right. We need nursery provision, improvements in the primary schools and Government aid to enable local authorities to go comprehensive. It is interesting that the Council advocated comprehensive schools for the Northern Region.
An injection of resources now—not in five or 10 years' time—would yield great dividends both socially and economically. It would enable the region to contribute to the prosperity of the nation. Even more important, it would give every boy and girl the opportunity which they ought to have to develop their talents and abilities to the full. I am very conscious of that every day in the North.
I want to see the Minister taking the initiative, allocating extra resources and pursuing a positive policy which would give individual children real equality of opportunity and enable the Northern Region to achieve parity with other areas of the country.

1.14 a.m.

Mr. Mark Hughes: As one who until June was associated with the next rung on the educational ladder, may I press on the Minister that unless the points raised by my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) are taken into account, and unless the nursery, primary and secondary schools in the


North-East are given the resources which they desperately need, much of the expenditure on the Universities of Durham and Newcastle and on the polytechnics in the region is ill-spent. Unless we get our basis right, we do not achieve the objective of this expenditure. Therefore, as one who is associated with that end, I briefly support my hon. Friend's submission.

1.15 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) will forgive me and, I hope, acquit me of discourtesy if I am unable to deal with all the points that he has raised. I have noted them carefully, as I have those made in the necessarily brief intervention of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes).
I hope that it will not sound unduly pompous, which I hope that I am not, if I say that my first official visit in my job was to the North-East. That was because I have always thought that too much happens from London, and I wanted to start my modest and no doubt short career at my Department by seeing for myself on the ground some of the problems in a region which is rightly famous for a very vigorous people. As a result, I am fully conscious of the requirements of education in that area.
The hon. Member for Durham, North-West has referred to the Report of the Northern Economic Planning Council, which I have read with great care. My Secretary of State has asked me to say that she hopes, before long, to send the Council some further comments on its report. Naturally, there has already been contact on this matter.
I want, as the hon. Gentleman did, to start at nursery education. Both hon. Members are more entitled to say so than I am, but it is undoubtedly true that, for historical reasons largely connected with the pattern of employment in the North-East, nursery education has not developed rapidly. Over England and Wales as a whole, about 8 per cent of the combined 3 and 4-year olds are in nursery schools or classes, whereas the proportion in the North is very much smaller. That is why our predecessors devoted a sub-

stantial part of the first two phases of the Urban Programme to the expansion of nursery education in the North.
Between them, those two phases provide over 1,000 places, or about 10 per cent of the total for England and Wales as a whole. That has to be set against the Northern Region's 7½ per cent of the total school population. It is fair to recall that allocation.
In phase 3 of the Urban Programme, which we announced last month, the Northern Region has done even better. We have approved another 750 places, or about 15 per cent of the total for England and Wales. In terms of money, the north has done better still. About one-fifth of the total educational share of the third phase of the Urban Programme is going to the North, with a special Government grant of 75 per cent. So I am able to say that I am totally seized of the problem and that, as far as resources allow, we shall continue to expand nursery education in socially deprived areas.
The hon. Gentleman will recall that in its report, the Economic Planning Council recognised that the north had had a substantial share of the resources available for school building during the 1960s. In the three programmes so far approved for the 1970s, this record will be maintained and improved. The value of major projects to be started, including the special allocations for raising the school leaving age, will rise from £11 million in 1970–71 to nearly £12½ million in 1972–73. Within the total for 1972–73, the Northern Region will do particularly well in terms of resources for the replacement and improvement of old primary schools, which is the Government's first priority for school building after basic needs have been met. There are 39 projects in the programme for this purpose, at a cost of over £3·5 million, compared with 25 projects at a cost of £2·2 million in 1971–72. The primary school building programme as a whole in the Northern Region in 1972–73 will total about £4·8 million, 20 per cent. more than in each of the two previous years and indeed an all-time record.
The hon. Member made special reference to primary schools, and, without his expertise behind me, I totally agree with his order or priorities. He will, therefore,


be glad to know that the two programmes together will make possible the replacement of about one-fifth of those nineteenth century primary schools for which, according to returns by local authorities, there is a long-term need. 1 hope we shall be able to maintain this good progress. I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to make this very clear indeed.
Perhaps I could mention one other small but important feature of school building programmes. Durham's allocation for minor works costing less than £30,000 each and this is an important human allocation, although it may be small money in national terms—has been increased from £380,000 in 1970–71 and 71–72 to £450,000 in 1972–73.
The House will appreciate that the 1972–73 programme is the first which an incoming Government, in this sphere, can lay hands on. Quite properly, reference has been made to class sizes, particularly in primary schools. I do not want anyone to read satisfaction into my words. One of the great interests of education is that one can never be satisfied because each progress produces greater demand.
In January, 1969, 10·2 per cent. of primary classes in the North had more than 40 pupils, compared with 9·5 per cent. in the country as a whole, so it was worse. As the hon. Member foreshadowed, by January, 1970, the North's figure had fallen to 6·8 per cent. as against 6·7 per cent. for the country as a whole. In other words, the north has been catching up, and the proportion of primary classes over 35 in the North, 34·6 per cent., is smaller than the figure of 37·6 per cent. for England and Wales. The figure for the proportion of classes over 35 is smaller per cent. than the figure for England and Wales. Under the quotas recently announced, staffing at schools in the North should continue to improve.
I was glad that the hon. Member mentioned the school leaving age and voluntary staying on. I take every opportunity of making it clear that the Government are firmly committed to raising the school leaving age in 1972–73 and the North has its substantial share of the necessary allocation of resources.
Even in advance of the raising of the school leaving age, we can all recognise, as the hon. Member has, that voluntary staying on in the North has shown a welcome increase. In 1964—I think this is the same figure as the hon. Member mentioned—24 per cent. of pupils were staying on at maintained schools. He was absolutely right to look at the figure with great anxiety, comparing it with the national figure of 37 per cent. By 1969 the gap had been halved to 45 per cent. in the North and 53 per cent. in England and Wales. No region made faster progress in this very important matter than the North.
I shall not go into higher education and the university sector, which is also important; but I should like to mention capital investment as a whole. The Economic Planning Council's Report, which I have already mentioned, showed that over the four years 1965–66 to 1968–69 capital investment for education in the North, other than universities, totalled over £47 million and represented over £14 per head of the population—the highest figure for any region in the country.
I do not want anyone to read into what I have said that I am satisfied or that, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, I am complacent. Not only in education but in many other services mentioned by the hon. Gentleman which I am not qualified to answer for at this Box there are still big gaps to fill. I understand that this throws heavy burdens on the local authorities, but I am seeking to show, without complacency, that there has been a very marked improvement over recent years. In particular—though I seek to make no narrow party point here, because this is not how the debate has been raised and conducted—specific decisions of this Government have continued and built upon that progress. I hope that I have shown that with my personal concern for and interest in a vital part of this United Kingdom I am not likely to overlook the proper and rightful claims of the North.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past One o'clock.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Division No. 133.]
AYES
[8.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Galpern, Sir Myer
Meacher, Michael


Albu, Austen
Garrett, W. E.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mendelson, John


Allen, Scholefield
Ginsburg, David
Mikardo, Ian


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Millan, Bruce


Armstrong, Ernest
Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Ashley, Jack
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Ashton, Joe
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Molloy, William


Atkinson, Norman
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Barnes, Michael
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Barnett, Joel
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Moyle, Roland


Beaney, Alan
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Murray, Ronald King


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hardy, Peter
Ogden, Eric


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Halloran, Michael


Bishop, E. S.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
O'Malley, Brian


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hattersley, Roy
Oram, Bert


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Heffer, Eric S.
Orbach, Maurice


Booth, Albert
Hilton, W. S.
Orme, Stanley


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Horam, John
Oswald, Thomas


Bradley, Tom
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Huckfield, Leslie
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cant, R. B.
Hunter, Adam
Pendry, Tom


Carmichael,Neil
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Pentland, Norman


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Janner, Greville
Perry, Ernest G.


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Prescott, John


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmor
Probert, Arthur


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rankin, John


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cronin, John
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Richard, Ivor


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caemarvon)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Judd, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Dalyell, Tam
Kaufman, Gerald
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Kelley, Richard
Roper, John


Davidson, Arthur
Kinnock, Neil
Rose, Paul B.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lamble, David
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lamond, James
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Latham, Arthur
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lawson, George
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Deakins, Eric Lee,
Rt. Hn, Frederick
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Leonard, Dick
Siliars, James


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lester, Miss Joan
Silverman, Julius


Dempsey, James
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Skinner, Dennis


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Small, William


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Douglas, Dick (Stiriingshire, E.)
Lipton, Marcus
Spearing, Nigel


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lomas, Kenneth
Spriggs, Leslie


Driberg, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Stallard, A. W.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Ladle, Alex
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Edelman, Maurice
McBride, Neil
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McCartney, Hugh
Strang, Gavin


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McElhone, Frank
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Ellis, Tom
McGuire, Michael
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor
Swain, Thomas


Evans, Fred
Mackie, John
Taverne, Dick


Femyhough, E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)


Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Tinn, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)



Foley, Maurice
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Tomney, Frank


Foot, Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Torney, Tom


Ford, Ben
Marquand, David
Tuck, Raphael


Forrester, John
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Urwin, T. W.


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Varley, Eric G.


Freeson, Reginald
Mayhew, Christopher
Wainwright, Edwin







Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
White, James (Glasgow, Polfok)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Wallace, George
Whitlock, William



Watkins, David
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Weitzman, David
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Mr. John Golding and


Well belloved, James
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kinsey, J. R.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kirk, Peter


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Emery, Peter
Kitson, Timothy


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Eyre, Reginald
Knox, David


Astor, John
Farr, John
Lane, David


Atkins, Humphrey
Fell, Anthony
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Awdry, Daniel
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fidler, Michael
Le Marchant, Spencer


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Balniel, Lord
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(sut'nC'dfield)


Batsford, Brian
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fookes, Miss Janet
Longden, Gilbert


Bell, Ronald
Fortescue, Tim
Loveridge, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Foster, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fowler, Norman
MacArthur, Ian


Benyon, W.
Fox, Marcus
McCrindle, R. A.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fry, Peter
McLaren, Martin


Biffen, John
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Biggs-Davison, John
Gardner, Edward
McMaster, Stanley


Blaker, Peter
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Body, Richard
Glyn, Dr. Alan
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Boscawen, Robert
Goodhart, Philip
Maddan, Martin


Bowden, Andrew
Goodhew, Victor
Madel, David


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gorst, John
Maginnis, John E.


Braine, Bernard
Gower, Raymond
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Bray, Ronald
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Marten, Neil


Brewis, John
Gray, Hamish
Mather, Carol


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Green, Alan
maude, Angus


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Grieve, Percy
Mawby, Ray


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R.J.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Grylis, Michael
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bryan, Paul
Gummer, Selwyn
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Gurden, Harold
Micampbell, Norman


Buck, Antony
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W.)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hall-John (Wycombe)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Burden, F. A.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moate, Roger


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Molyneaux, James


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nalrn)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Money, Ernie


Carlisle, Mark
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Monro, Hector


Cary, Sir Robert
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Montgomery, Fergus


Channon, Paul
Haslhurst, Alan
More, Jasper


Chapman, Sydney
Hastings, Stephen
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Havers, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Churchill, W. S.
Hayhoe, Barney
Mudd, David


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Heseltine, Michael
Murton, Oscar


Clarke, Kenneth (RushCliffe)
Hicks, Robert
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Clegg, Walter
Hiley, Joseph
Neave, Airey


Cockeram, Eric
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Cooke, Robert
Hill James (Southampton, Test)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Coombs, Derek
Holland, Philip
Normanton, Tom


Cooper, A. E.
Holt, Miss Mary
Nott, John


Cordle, John
Hooson, Emlyn
Onslow, Cranley


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hordern, Peter
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Cormack, Patrick
Hornby, Richard
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Costain, A. P.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Osborn, John


Critchley, Julian
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Crouch, David
Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Crowder, F. P.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Curran, Charles
Hunt, John
Pardoe, John


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hutchinson, Michael Clark
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Iremonger, T. L.
Peel, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
James, David
Percival, Ian


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Dean, Paul
Jessel, Toby
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pink, R. Bonner


Dixon, Piers
Jopling, Michael
Pounder, Rafton


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Drayson, G. B.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Price, David (Eastleigh)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Dykes, Hugh
Kilfedder, James
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Eden, Sir John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Quennell, Miss J. M.







Raison, Timothy
Spence, John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Sproat, Iain
Vickers, Dame Joan


Redmond, Robert
Stainton, Keith
Waddington, David


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Steel, David
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Wall, Patrick


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stokes, John
Walters, Dennis


Ridsdale, Julian
Stuttafard, Dr. Tom
Ward, Dame Irene


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Sutcliffe, John
Warren, Kenneth


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tapsell, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Rost, Peter
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Royle, Anthony
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wiggin, Jerry


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Wilkinson, John


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tebbit, Norman
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Temple, John M.
Woodnutt, Mark


Scott, Nicholas
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Worsley, Marcus


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wylie, Rt. Hn, N. R.


Sharples, Richard
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Younger, Hn. George


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S)



Shelton, William (Clapham)
Tilney, John



Simeons, Charles
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Skeet, T. H. H.
Trew, Peter
Mr. Bernard Weatherhill and


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Mr. Keith Speed.


Soref, Harold
van Straubenzee, W. R.





Division No. 134.]
AYES
[9.38 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Deakins, Eric
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Albu, Austen
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dell, Rt. Hn, Edmund
Huckfield, Leslie


Allen, Scholefield
Dempsey, James
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Ashley, Jack
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Ashton, Joe
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hunter, Adam


Atkinson, Norman
Driberg, Tom
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Duffy, A. E. P.
Janner, Greville


Barnett, Joel
Dunn, James A.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Beaney, Alan
Dunnett, Jack
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Eadie, Alex
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Edelman, Maurice
John, Brynmor


Bishop, E. S.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Ellis, Tom
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Booth, Albert
English, Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Evans, Fred
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham, S.)


Bradley, Tom
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Judd, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Kaufman, Gerald


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kelley, Richard


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Foley, Maurice
Kinnock, Neil


Campbell, I. (Dunhartonshire, W.)
Foot, Michael
Lambie, David


Cant, R. B.
Ford, Ben
Lamond, James


Carmichael, Neil
Forrester, John
Latham, Arthur


Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lawson, George


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Freeson, Reginald
Leadbitter, Ted


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Galpern, Sir Myer
 Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Garrett, W. E.
Leonard, Dick


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lestor, Miss Joan


Cohen, Stanley
Ginsburg, David
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Concannon, J. D.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Conlan, Bernard
Gourley, Harry
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lipton, Marcus


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth


Crawshaw, Richard
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Loughlin, Charles


Cronin, John
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lyon, Alexander, W. (York)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)



Dalyell, Tam
Hardy, Peter
McBride, Neil


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Harper, Joseph
McCartney, Hugh


Davidson, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McElhone, Frank


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McGuire, Michael


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hattersley, Roy
Mackenzie, Gregor


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mackie, John


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Hilton, W. S.
Mackintosh, John P.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Horam, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)







McNamara, J. Kevin
Pearl, Rt. Hn, Fred
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Pendry, Tom
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Pentland, Norman
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Perry, Ernest G.
Strang, Gavin


Marks, Kenneth
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Strauss, Rt. Hn, G. R.


Marquand, David
Prescott, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Swain, Thomas


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Price, William (Rugby)
Taverns, Dick


Mayhew, Christopher
Probert, Arthur
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)


Meacher, Michael
Rankin, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Thompson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Mendelson, John
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Tinn, James


Mikardo, Ian
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Tomney, Frank


Milian, Bruce
Richard, Ivor
Torney, Tom


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tuck, Raphael


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Coronwy(Caernarvon)
Urwin, T. W.


Molloy, William
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Varley, Eric G.


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Wainwright, Edwin


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Roper, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Rose, Paul B.
Wallace, George


Moyle, Roland
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Watkins, David


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyme)
Weitzman, David


Murray, Ronald King
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wellbeloved, James


Ogden, Eric
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


O'Halloran, Michael
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


O'Malley, Brian
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Whitlock, William


Oram, Bert
Sillars, James
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Orbach, Maurice
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Orme, Stanley
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Oswald, Thomas
Small, William
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Palmer, Arthur
Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Spriggs, Leslie



Parker, John (Dagenham)
Stallard, A. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Mr. John Golding and


Pavitt, Laurie
MR. Donald Coleman





NOES


Adley, Robert
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fox, Marcus


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Churchill, W. S.
Fry, Peter


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Galbraith, Hn, T. G.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gardner, Edward


Astor, John
Clegg, Walter
Gibson-Watt, David


Atkins, Humphrey
Cockeram, Eric
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Awdry, Daniel
Cooke, Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Coombs, Derek
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Cooper, A. E.
Goodhart, Philip


Balniel, Lord
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Gorst, John


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Cormack, Patrick
Gower, Raymond


Batsford, Brian
Costain, A. P.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Critchley, Julian
Gray, Hamish


Bell, Ronald
Crouch, David
Green, Alan


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Crowder, F. P.
Grieve, Percy


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Curran, Charles
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Benyon, W.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grylls, Michael


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Gummer, Selwyn


Biffen, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gurden, Harold


Biggs-Davison, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Blaker, Peter
Dean, Paul
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Body, Richard
Dixon, Piers
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Boscawen, Robert
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Bowden, Andrew
Drayson, G. B.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Brains, Bernard
Dykes, Hugh
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vero


Bray, Ronald
Eden, Sir John
Haselhurst, Alan


Brew's, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hastings, Stephen


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Havers, Michael


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hawkins, Paul


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Emery, Peter
Hayhoe, Barney


Brune-Gardyne, J.
Eyre, Reginald
Heseltine, Michael


Bryan, Paul
Farr, John
Hicks, Robert


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Fell, Anthony
Hiley, Joseph


Buck, Antony
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fidler, Michael
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Burden, F. A.
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Holland, Philip


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Holt, Miss Mary


Carlisle, Mark
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hooson, Emlyn


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hordern, Peter


Cary, Sir Robert
Fortescue, Tim
Hornby, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Foster, Sir John
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fowler, Norman
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)







Howell, David (Guildford)
Molyneaux, James
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Money, Ernle D.
Simeons, Charles


Hunt, John
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Montgomery, Fergus
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Iremonger, T. L.
More, Jasper
Soref, Harold


James, David
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Speed, Keith


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Spence, John


Jessel, Toby
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sproat, Iain


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Mudd, David
Stainton, Keith


Jopling, Michael
Murton, Oscar
Stanbrook, Ivor


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Steel, David


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Neave, Airey
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Kilfedder, James
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Kimball, Marcus
Normanton, Tom
Stokes, John


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Nott, John
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Onslow, Cranley
Sutcliffe, John


Kinsey, J. R.
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Tapsell, Peter


Kirk, Peter
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Kitson, Timothy
Osborn, John
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Knox, David
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Lane, David
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Tebbit, Norman


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pardee, John
Temple, John M.


Le Marchant, Spencer
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Peel, John
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)
Percival, Ian
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)



Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tilney, John


Longdon, Gilbert
Pink, R. Bonner
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Loveridge, John
Pounder, Rafton
Trew, Peter


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Tugendhat, Christopher


MacArthur, Ian
Price, David (Eastleigh)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


McCrindle, R. A.
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


McLaren, Martin
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Vickers, Dame Joan


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Waddington, David


McMaster, Stanley
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Raison, Timothy
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Redmond, Robert
Wall, Patrick


Madden, Martin
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Walters, Dennis


Madel, David
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Ward, Dame Irene


Maginnis, John E.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Warren, Kenneth


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Weatherill, Bernard


Marten, Neil
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mather, Carol
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Maude, Angus
Ridsdale, Julian
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Mawby, Ray
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wilkinson, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rost, Peter
Woodnutt, Mark


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Royle, Anthony
Worsley, Marcus


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.



St. John-Stevas, Norman
Younger, Hn. George


Miscampbell, Norman
Scott, Nicholas



Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (aberdeenshire, W.)
Scott-Hopkins, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sharples, Richard
Mr. Hector Monro and


Moate, Roger
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Mr. Victor Goodhew.




Division No. 135.]
AYES
[11.8 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bradley, Tom
Crawshaw, Richard


Albu, Austen
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Allen, Scholefield
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Buchan, Norman
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)


Armstrong, Ernest
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dalyell, Tam


Ashley, Jack
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Darling, Rt. Hn. George


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Davidson, Arthur


Atkinson, Norman
Cant, R. B.
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carmichael, Neil
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Barnes, Michael
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Barnett, Joel
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)


Beaney, Alan
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Deakins, Eric


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund


Bishop, E. S.
Cohen, Stanley
Dempsey, James


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Concannon, J. D.
Doig, Peter


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Conlan, Bernard
Dormand, J. D.


Booth, Albert
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce







Driberg, Tom
Lamond, James
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Latham, Arthur
Price, William (Rugby)


Dunn, James A.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Probert, Arthur


Dunnett, Jack
Judd, Frank
Rankin, John


Eadie, Alex
Lawson, George
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Edelman, Maurice
Leadbitter, Ted
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Leonard, Dick
Richard, Ivor


Ellis, Tom
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


English, Michael
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Evans, Fred
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
Lipton, Marcus
Rodgers, Wiilliam (Stockton-on-Tees)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lomas, Kenneth
Roper, John


Fletcher, Raymond (Illkeston)
Loughlin, Charles
Rose, Paul B.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Foley, Maurice
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyre)


Foot, Michael
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Ford, Ben
McBride, Neil
Short, Rt. Hn, Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Forrester, John
McCartney, Frank
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McElhone, Frank
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Freeson, Reginald
McGuire, Michael
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackenzie, Gregor
Sillars, James


Garrett, W. E.
Mackie, John
Silverman, Julius


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mackintosh, John P.
Skinner, Dennis


Ginsburg, David
MacPherson, Malcolm
Small, William


Golding, John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Spearing, Nigel


Gourlay, Harry
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marks, Kenneth
Stallard, A. W.


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marquand, David
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mayhew, Christopher
Strang, Gavin


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Meacher, Michael
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Summerskili, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hardy, Peter
Mendelson, John
Swain, Thomas


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian
Taverne, Dick


Hattersley, Roy
Millan, Bruce
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Heffer, Eric S.
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hilton, W. S.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Thomson Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Horam, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Tinn, James


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tomney, Frank


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Torney, Tom


Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Tuck, Raphael


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Moyle, Roland
Urwin, T. W.


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Varley, Eric G.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Murray, Ronald King
Wainwright, Edwin



Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Hunter, Adam
O'Halloran, Michael
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
O'Malley, Brian
Wallace, George


Janner, Greville
Oram, Bert
Watkins, David


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orbach, Maurice
Weitzman, David


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Orme, Stanley
Wellbeloved, James


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oswald, Thomas
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


John, Brynmor
Palmer, Arthur
Whitlock, William


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley Hitchin)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurie
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Kaufman, Gerald
Pentland, Norman



Kelley, Richard
Perry, Ernest G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kinnock, Neil
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Lambie, David
Prescott, John
Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Benyon, W.
Brinton, Sir Tatton


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Biffen, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Biggs-Davison, John
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Astor, John
Blaker, Peter
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)


Atkins, Humphrey
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Buck, Antony


Awdry, Daniel
Body, Richard
Burden, F. A.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Boscawen, Robert
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bossom, Sir Clive
Carlisle, Mark


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bowden, Andrew
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Batsford, Brian
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cary, Sir Robert


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Braine, Bernard
Channon, Paul


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bray, Ronald
Chapman, Sydney


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Brewis, John
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher







Chichester-Clark, R.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Pink, R. Bonner


Churchill, W. S.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pounder, Rafton


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Clegg, Walter
Hunt, John
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Cockeram, Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cooke, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Coombs, Derek
James, David
Raison, Timothy


Cooper, A. E.
Jessel, Toby
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Redmond, Robert


Cormack, Patrick
Jopling, Michael
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Costain, A. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Critchley, Julian
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Crouch, David
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Crowder, F. P.
Kilfedder, James
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Curran, Charles
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dalkeith, Earl of
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kinsey, J. R.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Kirk, Peter
Rost, Peter


Dean, Paul
Kitson, Timothy
Royle, Anthony


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Knox, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dixon, Piers
Lambton, Antony
St. John-Stevan, Norman


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lane, David
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Drayson, G. B.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott, Nicholas


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Le Marchant, Spencer
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dykes, Hugh
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sharpies, Richard


Eden, Sir John
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geolfrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Longden, Gilbert
Simeons, Charles


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Loveridge, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Emery, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Eyre, Reginald
MacArthur, Ian
Soref, Harold


Farr, John
McCrindle, R. A.
Speed, Keith


Fell, Anthony
McLaren, Martin
Spence, John


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Sproat, Iain


Fidler, Michael
McMaster, Stanley
Stainton, Keith


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Steel, David


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Stewart-Smith, D. G, (Belper)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Madel, David
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Fowler, Norman
Maginnis, John E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fox, Marcus
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stokes, John


Fry, Peter
Marten, Neil
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mather, Carol
Sutcliffe, John


Gardner, Edward
Maude, Angus
Tapsell, Peter


Gibson-Watt, David
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Tebbit, Norman


Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Temple, John M.


Goodhew, Victor
Miscampbell, Norman
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Gorst, John
Mitehell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Gower, Raymond
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Moate, Roger
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Cray, Hamish
Molyneaux, James
Tilney, John


Green, Alan
Money, Ernie
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Grieve, Percy
Monro, Hector
Trew, Peter


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Montgomery, Fergus
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gry11s, Michael
More, Jasper
van Strauhenzee, W. R.


Gummer, Selwyn
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Gurden, Harold
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Waddington, David


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mudd, David
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Murton, Oscar
Walker, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wall, Patrick


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Neave, Airey
Walters, Dennis


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Ward, Dame Irene


Haselhurst, Alan
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Hastings, Stephen
Normanton, Tom
Weatherill, Bernard


Havers, Michael
Nott, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranley
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hayhoe, Barney
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wiggin, Jerry


Heseitine, Michael
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wilkinson, John


Hicks, Robert
Osborn, John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Higgins, Terence L.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Hiley, Joseph
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Worsley, Marcus


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Hil1, James (Southampton, Test)
Pardoe, John
Younger, Hn. George


Holland, Philip
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)



Hooson, Emlyn
Peel, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian
Mr. Hugh Rossi and


Hornby, Richard
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Mr. Tim Fortescue.







Division No. 136.]
AYES
[11.23 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Maddan, Martin


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fortescue, Tim
Madel, David


Astor, John
Fowler, Norman
Maginnis, John E.


Atkins, Humphrey
Fox, Marcus
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Awdry, Daniel
Fry, Peter
Marten, Neil


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mather, Carol


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gardner, Edward
Maude, Angus


Balniel, Lord
Gibson-Watt, David
Mawby, Ray


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Batsford, Brian
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Goodhew, Victor
Miscamphell, Norman


Benyon, W.
Gorst, John
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gower, Raymond
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Biffen, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Moate, Roger


Biggs-Davison, John
Gray, Hamish
Molyneaux, James


Blaker, Peter
Green, Alan
Money, Ernle


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Grieve, Percy
Monro, Hector


Body, Richard
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Montgomery, Fergus


Boscawen, Robert
Grylls, Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gummer, Selwyn
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Bowden, Andrew
Gurden, Harold
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mudd, David


Braine, Bernard
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Murton, Oscar


Bray, Ronald
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Brewis, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Haselhurst, Alan
Normanton, Tom


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hastings, Stephen
Nott, John


Bryan, Paul
Havers, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hawkins, Paul
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Buck, Antony
Hayhoe, Barney
Osborn, John


Burden, F. A.
Heseltine, Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hicks, Robert
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Carlisle, Mark
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Pardoe, John


Cary, Sir Robert
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Channon, Paul
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Peel, John


Chapman, Sydney
Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hooson, Emlyn
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hordern, Peter
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Churchill, W. S.
Hornby, Richard
Pink, R. Bonner


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Pounder, Rafton


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch



Howell, David (Guildford)



Clegg, Walter
Howell, Raplh (Norfolk, N.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cockeram, Eric
Hunt, John
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Cooke, Robert
Hutchinson, Michael Clark
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Coombs, Derek
Iremonger, T. L.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Cooper, A. E.
James, David
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Raison, Timothy


Cormack, Patrick
Jessel, Toby
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Costain, A. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Redmond, Robert


Critchley, Julian
Jopling, Michael
Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)


Crouch, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Crowder, F. P.
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Curran, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kilfedder, James
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridsdale, Julian


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
King, Tom (Bridgewater)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Dean, Paul
Kinsey, J. R.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kirk, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dixon, Piers
Kitson, Timothy
Rost, Peter


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Knox, David
Royle, Anthony


Drayson, G. B.
Lambton, Antony
Russell, Sir Ronald


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lane, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dykes, Hugh
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Eden, Sir John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Scott, Nicholas


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Sharples, Richard


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Longden, Gilbert
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Emery, Peter
Loveridge, John
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Eyre, Reginald
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Simeons, Charles


Farr, John
MacArthur, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fell, Anthony
McCrindle, R. A.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McLaren, Martin
Soref, Harold


Fidler, Michael
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Spence, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McMaster, Stanley
Sproat, Iain







Stainton, Keith
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Ward, Dame Irene


Stanbrook, Ivor
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Warren, Kenneth


Steel, David
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Weatherill, Bernard


Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Tilney, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Stokes, John
Trew, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Tugendhat, Christopher
Wilkinson, Joan


Sutcliffe, John
van Strauhenzee, W. R.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Tapsell, Peter
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Woodnutt, Mark


Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Vickers, Dame Joan
Worsley, Marcus



Waddington, David
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Younger, Hn. George


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)



Tebbit, Norman
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Temple, John M.
Wall, Patrick
Mr. Keith Speed and


Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Walters, Dennis
Mr. Jasper More




NOES


Abse, Leo
Edelman, Maurice
Leadbitter, Ted


Albu, Austen
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Leonard, Dick


Allen, Scholefield
Ellis, Tom
Lestor, Miss Joan


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
English, Michael
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Armstrong, Ernest
Evans, Fred
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Ashton, Joe
Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Atkinson, Norman
Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Lipton, Marcus


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lomas, Kenneth


Barnes, Michael
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Loughlin, Charles


Barnett, Joel
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Beaney, Alan
Foley, Maurice
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Foot, Michael
McBride, Neil


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Ford, Ben
McCartney, Hugh


Bishop, E. S.
Forrester, John
McElhone, Frank


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McGuire, Michael


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Freeson, Reginald
Mackenzie, Gregor


Booth, Albert
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackie, John


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Garrett, W. E.
Mackintosh, John P.


Bradley, Tom
Gilbert, Dr. John
McNamara, J. Kevin


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Ginsburg, David
MacPherson, Malcolm


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Gourlay, Harry
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Buchan, Norman
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marks, Kenneth


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marquand, David


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Cant, R. B.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mayhew, Christopher


Carmichael, Neil
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Meacher, Michael


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hardy, Peter
Mendelson, John


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hattersley, Roy
Millan, Bruce


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Cohen, Stanley
Hilton, W. S.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Coleman, Donald
Horam, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Concannon, J. D.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Conlan, Bernard
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Moyle, Roland


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Murray, Ronald King


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hunter, Adam
Ogden, Eric


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
O'Halloran, Michael


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Janner, Greville
O'Malley, Brian


Dalyell, Tam
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oram, Bert


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Orbach, Maurice


Davidson, Arthur
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Orme, Stanley


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Oswald, Thomas


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
John, Brynmor
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Palmer, Arthur


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Dempsey, James
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Doig, Peter
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Pendry, Tom


Dormand, J. D.
Judd, Frank
Pentland, Norman


Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Perry, Ernest G.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kelley, Richard
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Driberg, Tom
Kinnock, Neil
Prescott, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lambie, David
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dunn, James A.
Lamond, James
Price, William (Rugby)


Dunnett, Jack
Latham, Arthur
Probert, Arthur


Eadie, Alex
Lawson, George
Rankin, John







Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Small, William
Varley, Eric G.


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Spearing, Nigel
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Richard, Ivor
Spriggs, Leslie
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stallard, A. W.
Wallace, George


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Watkins, David


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Weitzman, David


Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wellbeloved, James


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Strang, Gavin
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Roper, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Rose, Paul B.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Whitlock, William


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Swain, Thomas
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Taverne, Dick
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertlliery)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Tinn, James
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Tomney, Frank



Sillars, James
Torney, Tom
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Silverman, Julius
Tuck, Raphael
Mr. John Golding and


Skinner, Dennis
Urwin, T. W.
Mr. Joseph Harper.




Division No. 137.]
AYES
[11.33 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Crouch, David
Havers, Michael


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Crowder, F. P.
Hawkins, Paul


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Curran, Charles
Hayhoe, Barney


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Heseltine, Michael


Astor, John
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hicks, Robert


Atkins, Humphrey
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Higgins, Terence L.


Awdry, Daniel
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Hiley, Joseph


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Dean, Paul
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Balniel, Lord
Dixon, Piers
Holland, Philip


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hooson, Emlyn


Batsford, Brian
Drayson, G. B.
Hornby, Richard


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Dykes, Hugh
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Eden, Sir John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Benyon, W.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hunt, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Biffen, John
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Iremonger, T. L.


Biggs-Davison, John
Emery, Peter
James, David


Blaker, Peter
Eyre, Reginald
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Farr, John
Jessel, Toby


Body, Richard
Fell, Anthony
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Boscawen, Robert
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Jopling, Michael


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fidler, Michael
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bowden, Andrew
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Kershaw, Anthony


Braine, Bernard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kilfedder, James


Bray, Ronald
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kimball, Marcus


Brewis, John
Fortescue, Tim
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fowler, Norman
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fox, Marcus
Kinsey, J. R.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fry, Peter
Kirk, Peter


Bryan, Paul
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Kitson, Timothy


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Gardner, Edward
Knox, David


Buck, Antony
Gibson-Watt, David
Lambton, Antony


Burden, F. A.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lane, David


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Carlisle, Mark
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Le Marchant, Spencer


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Goodhart, Philip
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Cary, Sir Robert
Gorst, John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Channon, Paul
Gower, Raymond
Longden, Gilbert


Chapman, Sydney
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Loveridge, John


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gray, Hamish
MacArthur, Ian


Chichester-Clark, R.
Green, Alan
McCrindle, R. A.


Churchill, W. S.
Grieve, Percy
McLaren, Martin


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclife)
Grylls, Michael
McMaster, Stanley



Gummer, Selwyn
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Clegg, Walter
Gurden, Harold
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Cooke, Robert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maddan, Martin


Coombs, Derek
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Madel, David


Cooper, A. E.
Hamilton, Michael (Sailsbury)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Marten, Neil


Cormack, Patrick
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mather, Carol


Costain, A. P.
Haselhurst, Alan
Maude, Angus


Critchtey, Julian
Hastings, Stephen
Mauding, Rt. Hn. Reginald







Mawby, Ray
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Sutcliffe, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Tapsell, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Raison, Timothy
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Miscampbell, Norman
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Tebbit, Norman


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Redmond, Robert
Temple, John M.


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Moate, Roger
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Molyneaux, James
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Money, Ernle
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Monro, Hector
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tilney, John


Montgomery, Fergus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


More, Jasper
Ridsdale, Julian
Trew, Peter


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Rost, Peter
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Mudd, David
Royle, Anthony
Vickers, Dame Joan


Murton, Oscar
Russell, Sir Ronald
Waddington, David


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Neave, Airey
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Scott, Nicholas
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wall, Patrick


Normanton, Tom
Sharples, Richard
Walters, Dennis


Nott, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Ward, Dame Irene


Onslow, Cranley
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Warren, Kenneth


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Simeons, Charles
Weatherill, Bernard


Osborn, John
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Smith, Dudley (W 'wick &amp; L'mington)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Soref, Harold
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Speed, Keith
Wiggin, Jerry


Pardoe, John
Spence, John
Wilkinson, John


Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Peel, John
Sproat, Iain
Woodnutt, Mark


Percival, Ian
Stainton, Keith
Worsley, Marcus


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Steel, David
Younger, Hn. George


Pink, R. Bonner
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)



Pounder, Rafton
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stokes, John
Mr. Hugh Rossi and


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Mr. Victor Goodhew




NOES


Abse, Leo
Crawshaw, Richard
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Albu, Austen
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Freeson, Reginald


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Galpern, Sir Myer


Allen, Scholefield
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Garrett, W. E.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Armstrong, Ernest
Dalyell, Tam
Ginsburg, David


Ashton, Joe
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Atkinson, Norman
Davidson, Arthur
Gourlay, Harry


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Barnes, Michael
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Barnett, Joel
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Bentley, Alan
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Deakins, Eric
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Bishop, E. S.
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hannan, Willam (G'gow, Maryhill)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dempsey, James
Hardy, Peter


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Doig, Peter
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Booth, Albert
Dormand, J. D.
Hattersley, Roy


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bradley, Tom
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hilton, W. S.


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Driberg, Tom
Horam, John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dunn, James A.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Buchan, Norman
Dunnett, Jack
Huckfield, Leslie


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Edelman, Maurice
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Cant, R. B.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Carmichael, Neil
Ellis, Tom
Hunter, Adam


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
English, Michael
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Evans, Fred
Janner, Greville


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fernyhough, E.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham, Ladywood)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'h'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Cohen, Stanley
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Coleman, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
John, Brynmor


Concannon, J. D.
Foley, Maurice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Conran, Bernard
Foot, Michael
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ford, Ben
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Forrester, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)







Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Molloy, William
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Morris, Alfred (WYthenshawe)
Siliars, James


Judd, Frank
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Silverman, Julius


Kaufman, Gerald
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Skinner, Dennis


Kelley, Richard
Moyle, Roland
Small, William


Kinnock, Neil
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Lambie, David
Murray, Ronald King
Spearing, Nigel


Lamond, James
Ogden, Eric
Spriggs, Leslie


Latham, Arthur
O'Halloran, Michael
Stallard, A. W.


Lawson, George
O'Malley, Brian
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Leadbitter, Ted
Oram, Bert
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Orbach, Maurice
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Leonard, Dick
Orme, Stanley
Strang, Gavin


Lestor, Miss Joan
Oswald, Thomas
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Palmer, Arthur
Swain, Thomas


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Taverne, Dick


Lipton, Marcus
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Lomas, Kenneth
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Loughlin, Charles
Pavitt, Laurie
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Tinn, James


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Pendry, Tom
Tomney, Frank


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pentland, Norman
Torney, Tom


McBride, Neil
Perry, Ernest G.
Tuck, Raphael


McCartney, Hugh
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Urwin, T. W.


McElhone, Frank
Prescott, John
Varley, Eric G.


McGuire, Michael
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
wainwright, Edwin


Mackenzie, Gregor
Price, William (Rugby)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Mackie, John
Probert, Arthur
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mackintosh, John P.
Rankin, John
Wallace, George


McNamara, J. Kevin
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Watkins, David


MacPherson, Malcom
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Weitzman, David


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wellbeloved, James


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Richard, Ivor
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Marquand, David
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Whitlock, William


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mayhew, Christopher
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Meacher, Michael
Roper, John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rose, Paul B.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mendelson, John
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mikardo, Ian
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)



Millan, Bruce
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Short, Rt. Hn. Eslward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Mr. John Golding.




Division No. 138.]
AYES
[12.3 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Dalkeith, Earl of


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)


Aliason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Bryan, Paul
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack


Astor, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Dean, Paul


Atkins, Humphrey
Buck, Antony
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Awdry, Daniel
Bunden, F. A.
Dixon, Piers


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Butter, Adam (Bosworth)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Carlisle, Mark
Drayson, G. B.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Batsford, Brian
Cary, Sir Robert
Dykes, Hugh


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Channon, Paul
Eden, Sir John


Bell, Ronald
Chapman, Sydney
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Emery, Peter


Benyon, W.
Churchill, W. S.
Eyre, Reginald


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Clark William (Surrey, E.)
Farr, John


Biften, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fell, Anthony


Biggs-Davison, John
Clegg, Walter
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Blaker, Peter
Cockeram, Eric
Fidler, Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Cooke, Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Body, Richard
Coombs, Derek
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Boscawen, Robert
Cooper, A. E.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bossom, Sir Clive
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bowden, Andrew
Cormack, Patrick
Fowler, Norman


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Costain, A. P.
Fox, Marcus


Brainy, Bernard
Critchley, Julian
Fry, Peter


Bray, Ronald
Crouch, David
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Brewis, John
Crowder, F. P.
Gardner, Edward


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Curran, Charles
Gibson-Watt, David







Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McCrindle, R. A.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McLaren, Martin
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Goodhart, Philip
McMaster, Stanley
Rost, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Royle, Anthony


Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Gower, Raymond
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maddan, Martin
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Gray, Hamish
Madel, David
Scott, Nicholas


Green, Alan
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Scott-Hopkins, James


Grieve, Percy
Marten, Neil
Sharples, Richard


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mather, Carol
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Grylls, Michael
Maude, Angus
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Gummer, Selwyn
Maudling, Rt Hn. Reginald
Simeons, Charles


Gurden, Harold
Mawby, Ray
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Soref, Harold


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Speed, Keith


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Spence, John


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Miscampbell, Norman
Sproat, Iain


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mitchell, Lt-Col C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Stainton, Keith


Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hastings, Stephen
Moate, Roger
Steel, David


Havers, Michael
Molyneaux, James
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Hawkins, Paul
Money, Ernle
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hayhoe, Barney
Monro, Hector
Stokes, John


Heseltine, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hicks, Robert
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Sutcliffe, John


Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Tapsell, Peter



Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Hiley, Joseph
Mudd, David
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Tebbit, Norman


Holland, Philip
Neave, Airey
Temple, John M.


Hooson, Emlyn
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hornby, Richard
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Normanton, Tom
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Onslow, Cranley
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nott, John
Tilney, John


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hunt, John
Osborn, John
Trew, Peter


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Iremonger, T. L.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


James, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pardoe, John
Vickers, Dame Joan


Jessel, Toby
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Waddington, David


Johnson Smith, G. E. (E. Grinstead)
Peel, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Jopling, Michael
Percival, Ian
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Pink, R. Bonner
Wall, Patrick


Kershaw, Anthony
Pounder, Rafton
Walters, Dennis


Kilfedder, James
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Ward, Dame Irene




Warren, Kenneth


Kimball, Marcus
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Weatherill, Bernard


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Kinsey, J. R.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Kirk, Peter
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wiggin, Jerry


Kitson, Timothy
Raison, Timothy
Wilkinson, John


Knox, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Lambton, Antony
Redmond, Robert
Woodnutt, Mark


Lane, David
Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)
Worsley, Marcus


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Younger, Hn. George


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David



Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Longden, Gilbert
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Mr. Jasper More and


MacArthur, Ian
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Tim Fortescue




NOES


Abse, Leo
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carmichael, Neil


Albu, Austen
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Booth, Albert
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)


Allen, Scholefield
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Bradley, Tom
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Cohen, Stanley


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Coleman, Donald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Buchan, Norman
Concannon, J. D.


Barnes, Michael
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Conlan, Bernard


Barnett, Joel
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthoney Wedgwood
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Crawshaw, Richard


Bishop, E. S.
Cant, R. B.
Cronin, John







Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
John, Brynmor
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pendry, Tom


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pentland, Norman


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Prescott, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Deakins, Eric
Judd, Frank
Prohert, Arthur


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kaufman, Gerald
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kelley, Richard
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dempsey, James
Kinnock, Neil
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Doig, Peter
Lambie, David
Richard, Ivor


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Latham, Arthur
Roberts, Rt Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lawson, George
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Driberg, Tom
Leadbitter, Ted
Roderick, Caerwyn (E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Leonard, Dick
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dunn, James A.
Lestor, Miss John
Roper, John


Dunnett, Jack
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Rose, Paul B.


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Edelman, Maurice
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lipton, Marcus
Shore Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lomas, Kenneth
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Ellis, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


English, Michael
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Evans, Fred
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Fernyhough, E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sillars, James




Silverman, Julius


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
McBride, Neil
Skinner, Dennis


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McCartney, Hugh
Small, William


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McElhone, Frank
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Foley, Maurice
McGuire, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Foot, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor
Spriggs, Leslie


Ford, Ben
Mackie, John
Stallard, A. W.


Forrester, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Freeson, Reginald
McNamara, J. Kevin
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Galpern, Sir Myer
MacPherson, Malcolm
Strang, Gavin


Garrett, W. E.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Strauss, Rt. Ho. G. R.


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Summerskill, Ho, Dr. Shirley


Ginsburg, David
Marks, Kenneth
Swain, Thomas


Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Marquand, David
Taverne, Dick


Gourlay, Harry
Marsh, Rt, Hn. Richard
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Meacher, Michael
Tinn, James


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tomney, Frank


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mendelson, John
Torney, Tom


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mikardo, Ian
Tuck, Raphael


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Milian, Bruce
Urwin, T. W.


Hardy, Peter
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Varley, Eric G.


Harper, Joseph
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wainwright, Edwin


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Molloy, William
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wallace, George


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Watkins, David


Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Weitzman, David


Horam, John
Moyle, Roland
Wellheloved, James


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Murray, Ronald King
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Huckfield, Leslie
Ogden, Eric
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Halloran, Michael
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)



Oram, Bert
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orme, Stanley
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hunter, Adam
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)



Janner, Greville
Palmer, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charies
Mr. John Golding and


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Mr. Alan Fitch.




Division No. 139.]
AYES
[12.14 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Atkins, Humphrey
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Awdry, Daniel
Batsford, Brian


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylehone)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bell, Ronald


Astor, John
Balniel, Lord
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)







Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Benyon, W.
Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gummer, Selwyn
Mudd, David


Biffen, John
Gurden, Harold
Murton, Oscar


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Blaker, Peter
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Neave, Airey


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Body, Richard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Boscawen, Robert
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Normanton, Tom


Bossom, Sir Clive
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nott, John


Bowden, Andrew
Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Cranley


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hastings, Stephen
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Braine, Bernard
Havers, Michael
Osborn, John


Bray, Ronald
Hawkins, Paul
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Brewis, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Heseltine, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hicks, Robert
Pardoe, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Higgins, Terence L.
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hiley, Joseph
Peel, John


Bryan, Paul
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Percival, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Buck, Antony
Holland, Philip
Pink, R. Bonner


Burden, F. A.
Hordern, Peter
Pounder, Rafton


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hornby, Richard
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Carlisle, Mark
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Channon, Paul
Howell, David (Guildford)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pym, Rt Hn. Franc's


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hunt, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Raison, Timothy


Churchill, W. S.
Iremonger, T. L.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn, James


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
James, David
Redmond, Robert


Carke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Clegg, Walter
Jessel, Toby
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Cockeram, Eric
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cooke, Robert
Jopling, Michael
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Coombs, Derek
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cooper, A. E.
Kellett, Mrs.Elaine
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian


Cormack, Patrick
Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Contain, A. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Critchley, Julian
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Crouch, David
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rost, Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Kinsey, J. R.
Royle, Anthony


Curran Charles
Kirk, Peter
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kitson, Timothy
St. John-Stevans, Norman


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Knox, David
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lambton, Antony
Scott, Nicholas


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack




Dean, Paul
Lane, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sharples, Richard


Dixon, Piers
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shelton, William (Clapham).


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Simeons, Charles


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Longden, Gilbert
Skeet, T. H. H


Dykes, Hugh
Loveridge, John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Eden, Sir John
MacArthur, Ian
Soref, Harold


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McCrindle, R. A.
Speed, Keith


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McLaren, Martin
Spence, John


Emery, Peter
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Sproat, Iain


Eyre, Reginald
McMaster, Stanley
Stainton, Keith


Farr, John
Macmillian, Maurice (Farnham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fell, Anthony
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Steel, David


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Fidler, Michael
Madden, Martin
Stoddart-Scott, Col, Sir M.


Finsherg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Madel, David
Stokes, John


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marten, Neil
Sutcliffe, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mather, Carol
Tapsell, Peter


Fortescue, Tim
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Fowler, Norman
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fox, Marcus
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Fry, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tebbit, Norman


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Temple, John M.


Gardner, Edward
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, Sir Richard(Croydon, S.)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tilney, John


Gort, John
Moate, Roger
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Gower, Raymond
Molyneaux, James
Trew, Peter


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Money, Ernle
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gray, Hamish
Montgomery, Fergus
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Green, Alan
More, Jasper
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Grieve, Percy
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Vickers, Dame Joan







Waddington, David
Weatherill, Bernard
Worsley, Marcus


Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
White, Roger (Gravesend)
Younger, Hn. George


Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William



Wall, Patrick
Wiggin, Jerry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Walters, Dennis
Wilkinson, John
Mr Hector Monro and


Ward, Dame Irene
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Mr Victor Goodhew


Warren, Kenneth
Woodnutt, Mark





NOES


Abse, Leo
Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
McBride, Neil


Albu, Austen
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCartney, Hugh


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McElhone, Frank


Allen, Scholefied
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Foley, Maurice
Mackenzie, Gregor


Armstrong, Ernest
Foot, Michael
Mackie, John


Ashton, Joe
Ford, Ben
Mackintosh, John P.


Atkinson, Norman
Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Barnes, Michael
Freeson, Reginald
MacPherson, Malcolm


Barnett, Joel
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Garrett, W. E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Marks, Kenneth


Bishop, E. S.
Ginsburg, David
Marquand, David


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gourlay, Harry
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Booth, Albert
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mayhew, Christopher


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Meacher, Michael


Bradley, Tom
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mendelson, John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Milian, Bruce


Buchan, Norman
Hardy, Peter
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Buchanan, Richard (G'ow, Sp'burn)
Harper, Joseph
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Molloy, William


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)



Cant, R. B.
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Carmichael, Neil
Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Horam, John
Moyle, Roland


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Murray, Ronald King


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Huckfield, Leslie
Ogden, Eric


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Halloran, Michael


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Malley, Brian


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oram, Bert


Concannon J. D.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orbach, Maurice


Conlan, Bernard
Hunter, Adam
Orme, Stanley


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Oswald, Thomas


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Janner, Greville
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur


Cronin, John
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Crosiand, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
John, Brynmor
Pavitt, Laurie


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, James (K'ton-on-Hull, W.)
Pendry, Tom


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pentland, Norman


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Perry, Ernest G.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prescott, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhodda, W.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Judd, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)


Deakins, Eric
Kaufman, Gerald
Probert, Arthur


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kelly, Richard
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kinnock, Neil
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dempsey, James
Lamble, David
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Doig, Peter
Lamond, James
Richard, Ivor


Dormand J. D.
Latham, Arthur
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lawson, George
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Driberg, Yom
Leonard, Dick
Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Test)


Dunn, James A.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Roper, John


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Arthur (W. Hamn N.)
Rose, Paul B.


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Edelman, Maurice
Lipton, Marcus
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lomas, Kenneth
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)




Ellis, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


English, Michael
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Evans, Fred
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fornyhough, E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)







Siliars, James
Taverne, Dick
Weitzman, David


Silverman, Julius
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)
Wellbeloved, James


Skinner, Dennis
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Small, William
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Tinn, James
Whitlock, William


Spearing, Nigel
Tomney, Frank
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Spriggs, Leslie
Torney, Tom
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Stallard, A. W.
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Varley, Eric G.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wainwright, Edwin
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Strang, Gavin
Walden, Brian(B'm'ham, All Saints)



Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wallace, George
Mr James Hamilton and


Swain, Thomas
Watkins, David
Mr John Golding




Division No. 140.]
AYES
[12.25 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hornby, Richard


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Dean, Paul
Howell, David (Guildford)


Astor, John
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Howell, Raph (Norfolk, N.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Dixon, Piers
Hunt, John


Awdry, Daniel
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Drayson, G. B.
Iremonger, T. L.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
James, David


Balniel, Lord
Dykes, Hugh
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Eden, Sir John
Jessel, Toby


Batsford, Brian
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jopling, Michael


Bell, Ronald
Emery, Peter
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Eyre, Reginald Kellett, Mrs.
Elaine


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Farr, Joan
Kershaw, Anthony


Benyon, W.
Fell, Anthony
Kilfedder, James


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Kimball, Marcus


Biffen, John
Fidler, Michael
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
King, Tom (Bridgewater)


Blaker, Peter
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Kinsey, J.R.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kirk, Peter


Body, Richard
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kitson, Timothy


Boscawen, Robert
Fortescue, Tim
Knox, David


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fowler, Norman
Lambton, Antony


Bowden, Andrew
Fox, Marcus
Lane, David


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Fry, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Braine, Bernard
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Le Marchant, Spencer


Bray, Ronald
Gardner, Edward
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Brewis, John
Gibson-Watt, David
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Longden, Gilbeert


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Loveridge, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Goodhart, Philip
MacArthur, Ian


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Goodhew, Victor
McCrindle, R. A.


Bryan, Paul
Gorst, John
McLaren, Martin


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Gower, Raymond
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Buck, Antony
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McMaster, Stanley


Burden, F. A.
Gray, Hamish
MacMillian, Maurice (Farnham)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Green, Alan
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Carlisle, Mark
Grieve, Percy
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maddan, Martin


Chanson, Paul
Grylls, Michael
Madel, David


Chapman, Sydney
Gummer, Selwyn
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gurden, Harold
Marten, Neil


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mather, Carol


Churchill, W. S.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maude, Angus


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hall-Davis A. G. F.
Maudling,Rt. Hn. Reginald


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mawby, Ray



Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Clegg, Walter
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cockeram, Eric
Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Cooke, Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Coombs, Derek
Havers, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman


Cooper, A. E.
Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Heseltine, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Cormack, Patrick
Hicks, Robert
Moate, Roger


Costain, A. P.
Higgins, Terence L.
Molyneaux, James


Critchley, Julian
Hiley, Joseph
Money, Ernie


Crouch, David
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Monro, Hector


Crowder, F. P.
Hill James (Southampton, Test)
Montgomery, Fergus)


Curran, Charles
Holland, Philip
More, Jasper


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hordern, Peter
Morgan, Ceraint (Denbigh)







Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tebbit, Norman


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Temple, John M.


Mudd, David
Ridsdale, Julian
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Murton, Oscar
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Neave, Airey
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Nicholls, Sir Harmer
Rost, Peter
Tilney, John


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Royle, Anthony
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Normanton, Tom
Russell, Sir Ronald
Trew, Peter


Nott, John
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tugendhat, Christopher


Onslow, Cranley
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Scott, Nicholas
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Osborn, John
Scott-Hopkins, James
Vickers, Dame Joan


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Sharpies, Richard
Waddington, David


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Pardoe, John
Simeons, Charles
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wall, Patrick


Peel, John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Walters, Dennis


Percival, Ian
Soref, Harold
Ward, Dame Irene


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Speed, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Pink, R. Bonner
Spence, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pounder, Rafton
Sproat, Iain
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stainton, Keith
Whitelaw, Rt Hn. William


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wiggin, Jerry


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.




Proudfoot, Wilfred
Steel, David
Wilkinson, John


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stewart-smith, D. G. (Belper)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stoddart-Scott, Col, Sir M.
Woodnutt, Mark


Raison, Timothy
Stokes, John
Worsley, Marcus


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Redmond, Robert
Sutcliffe, John
Younger, Hn. George


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Tapsell, Peter



Rees, Peter (Dover)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rees-Davis, W. R.
Taylor Frank (Moss Side)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Mr. Paul Hawkins




NOES


Abse, Leo
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Gourlay, Harry


Albu, Austen
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dalyell, Tam
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Allen, Scholefleld
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Davidson, Arthur
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Atkinson, Norman
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hardy, Peter


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Harper, Joseph


Barnes, Michael
Deakins, Eric
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Barnett, Joel
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hattersley, Roy


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Dempsey, James
Heffer, Eric S.


Bishop, E. S.
Doig, Peter
Hilton, W. S.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dormand, J. D.
Horam, John


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Booth, Albert
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Driberg, Tom
Huckfield, Leslie


Bradley, Tom
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-tyne,w.)
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Brown, Ronald (Shoredlth &amp; F'bury)
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Buchan, Norman
Edelman, Maurice
Hunter, Adam


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow,Sp'burn)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Edwards, William (Merieneth)
Janner, Greville


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Ellis, Tom
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W).
English, Michael
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Cant, R. B.
Evans, Fred
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Carmichael, Neil
Fernyhough, E.
John, Brynmor


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)



Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Clark, David (Coine Valley)
Foley, Maurice
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Foot, Michael
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Cohen, Stanley
Ford, Ben
Jones T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Coleman, Donald
Forrester, John
Judd, Frank


Concannon, J. D.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Kaufman, Gerald


Conlan, Bernard
Freeson, Reginald
Kelley, Richard


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Galpern, Sir Myer
Kinnock, Neil


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Garrett, W. E.
Lamble, David


Crawhaw, Richard
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lamond, James


Cronin, John
Ginsburg, David
Latham, Arthur


Grosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Golding, John
Lawson, George


Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Gordon Walker, Rt Hn. P. C.
Leadbitter, Ted







Leonard, Dick
O'Halloran, Michael
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Lester, Miss Joan
O'Malley, Brian
Spearing, Nigel


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Oram, Bert
Spriggs, Leslie


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Orbach, Maurice
Stallard, A. W.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Orme, Stanley
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Lipton, Marcus
Oswald, Thomas
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Lomas, Kenneth
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Loughlin, Charles
Palmer, Arthur
Strang, Gavin


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Swain, Thomas


McBride, Neil
Pavitt, Laurie
Taverne, Dick


McCartney, Hugh
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Thomas,Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff,W.)


McElhone, Frank
Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


McGuire, Michael
Pentland, Norman
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Perry, Ernest G.
Tinn, James


Mackie, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Tomney, Frank


Mackintosh, John P.
Prescott, John
Torney, Tom


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Tuck, Raphael


McNamara, J. Kevin
Price, William (Rugby)
Urwin, T. W.


MacPherson, Malcolm
Probert, Arthur



Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Varley, Eric G.


Mallalieu, J. P.W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Marquand, David
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Richard, Ivor
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wallace, George


Mayhew, Christopher
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Watkins, David


Meacher, Michael
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Weitzman, David


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Wellbeloved, James


Mendelson, John
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mikardo, Ian
Roper, John
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Millan, Bruce
Rose, Paul B.
Whitlock, William


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Ross, Rt Hn. William (Kilmarnock)



Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Molloy, William
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Morgan, Elysian (Cardiganshire)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Moyle, Roland
Sillars, James



Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silverman, Julius
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Murray, Ronald King
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Kenneth Marks and


Ogden, Eric
Small, William
Mr. James Hamilton




Division No. 141.]
AYES
[12.35 a.m


Adley, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Eden, Sir John


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Buck, Antony
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Burden, F. A.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Emery, Peter


Astor, John
Carlisle, Mark
Eyre, Reginald


Atkins, Humphrey
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Farr, John


Awdry, Daniel
Channon, Paul
Fell, Anthony


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Chapman, Sydney
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fidler, Michael


Balniel, Lord
Chichester-Clark, R.
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Churchill, W. S.
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Batstord, Brian
Clark, Wiliam (Surrey, E.)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bell, Ronald
Cockeram, Eric
Fortescue, Tim


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Cooke, Robert
Fowler, Norman


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Coombs, Derek
Fox, Marcus


Benyon, W.
Cooper, A. E.
Fry, Peter


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Bitten, John
Cormack, Patrick
Gardner, Edward


Biggs-Davison, John
Costain, A. P.
Gibson-Watt, David


Blaker, Peter
Critchley, Julian
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Crouch, David
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Body, Richard
Crowder, F. P.
Goodhart, Philip


Boscawen, Robert
Curran, Charles
Goodhew, Victor


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dalkeith, Earl of
Coral, John


Bowden, Andrew
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Gower, Raymond


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Braine, Bernard
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Gray, Hamish


Bray, Ronald
Dean, Paul
Green, Alan


Brewis, John
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Grieve, Percy


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dixon, Piers
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Grylls, Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Drayson, G. B.
Gummer, Selwyn


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Gurden, Harold


Bryan, Paul
Dykes, Hugh
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)







Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marten, Neil
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mather, Carol
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maude, Angus
Scott, Nicholas


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Scott-Hopkins, James


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mawby, Ray
Sharples, Richard


Hasethurst, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hastings, Stephen
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Havers, Michael
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Simeons, Charles


Hawkins, Paul
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hayhoe, Barney
Miscamphell, Norman
Smith, Dudley (W'wick amp; L'mington)


Heseltine, Michael
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshlre, W.)
Soref, Harold


Hicks, Robert
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Speed, Keith


Higgins, Terence L.
Moate, Roger
Spence, John


Riley, Joseph
Molyneaux, James
Sproat, Iain


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Money, Ernie
Stainton, Keith


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Monro, Hector
Stanbrook, Ivor


Holland, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus
Steel, David


Hordern, Peter
Morgan, Geraint
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Hornhy, Richard
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hon.Dame Patricia
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stokes, John


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Mudd, David
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Howell, David (Guildford)
Murton, Oscar
Sutcliffe, John


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Tapsell, Peter


Hunt, John
Neave, Airey
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Iremonger, T. L.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


James, David
Normanton, Tom
Tebbit Norman


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Nott, John
Temple, John M.


Jessed, Toby
Onslow, Cranley
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Jopling, Michael
Osborn, John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Tilney, John


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Kilfedder, James
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Trew, Peter


Kimball, Marcus
Peel, John
Tugendhat, Christopher


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Percival, Ian
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Kinsey, J. R.
Pink, R. Bonner
Vickers, Dame Joan


Kirk, Peter
Pounder, Rafton
Waddington, David


Kitson, Timothy
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Knox, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Lambton, Antony
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Lane, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wall, Patrick


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pym, Rt. Hn. James
Walters, Dennis


Le Marchant, Spencer
Quenneil, Miss J. M.
Ward, Dame Irene


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ralson, Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Weatherill, Bernard


Longden, Gilbert
Redmond, Robert
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Loveridge, John
Reed, Peter (Dover)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


MacArthur, Ian
Rees-Davies, W.R.
Whitelaw Rt. Hn. Wiliam


McCrindle, R. A.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wiggin, Jerry


McLaren, Martin
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wilkinson, John


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


McMaster, Stanley
Ridsdale, Julian
Woodnutt, Mark


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Worsley, Marcus


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Younger, Hn. George


Maddan, Martin
Rost, Peter



Madel, David
Royle, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Russell, Sir Ronald
Mr. Jasper More and




Mr. Walter Clegg




NOES


Abse, Leo
Bradley, Tom
Concannon, J. D.


Albu, Austen
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Conlan, Bernard


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Allen, Scholefield
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Buchan, Norman
Crawshaw, Richard


Armstrong, Ernest
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Cronin, John


Ashton, Joe
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Atkinson, Norman
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)


Barnes, Michael
Cant, R. B.
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)


Barnett, Joel
Carmichael, Neil
Dalyell, Tam


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Carter, Ray, (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Darling, Rt. Hn, George


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Davidson, Arthur


Bishop, E. S.
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Davies, G. Elted (Rhondda, E.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Booth, Albert
Cohen, Stanley
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Coleman, Donald
Deakins, Eric







de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Judd, Frank
Prescott, John


Dempsey, James
Kaufman, Gerald
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Doig, Peter
Kelley, Richard
Price, William (Rugby)


Dormand, J. D.
Kinnock, Neil
Probert, Arthur


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lambie, David
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lamond, James
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Driberg, Tom
Latham, Arthur
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lawson, George
Richard, Ivor


Dunn, James A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunnett, Jack
Leonard, Dick
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Eadie, Alex
Lestor, Miss Joan
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edelman, Maurice
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roper, John


Ellis, Tom
Lipton, Marcus
Rose, Paul B.


English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Evans, Fred
Loughlin, Charles
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Fernyhough, E.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Foley, Maurice
McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Foot, Michael
McElhone, Frank
Sillars, James


Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael
Silverman, Julius


Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Gregor
Skinner, Dennis


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackie, John
Small, William


Freeson, Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McMillian, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Spearing, Nigel


Garrett, W. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Spriggs, Leslie


Gilbert, Dr. John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Stallard, A. W.


Ginsburg, David
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C
Mallelieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Gourlay, Harry
Marks, Kenneth
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marquand, David
Strang, Gavin


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mayhew, Christopher
Swain, Thomas


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Meacher, Michael
Taverne, Dick


Hamiton, William (Fife, W.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mendelson, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hardy, Peter
Mikardo, Ian
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Harper, Joseph
Millan, Bruce
Tinn, James


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Tomney, Frank


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Torney, Tom


Hattersley, Roy
Molloy, William
Tuck, Raphael


Heffer, Eric S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardigtanshir)
Urwin, T. W.


Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Varley, Eric G.


Horam, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wainwright, Edwin


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Moyle, Roland
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Huckfield, Leslie
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick



Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Murray, Ronald King
Wallace, George


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ogden, Eric
Watkins, David


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Weitzman, David


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Malley, Brian
Wellbeloved, James


Hunter, Adam
Oram, Bert
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Orbach, Maurice
White, James (Glasgow, Polok)


Janner, Greville
Orme, Stanley
Whitlock, William


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stcchford)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


John, Brynmor
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Williams, Alexnder (Hamilton)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pavitt, Laurie



Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pendry, Tom
Mr. John Golding and


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Pentland, Norman
Mr. Alan Fitch


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Perry, Ernest G.





Division No. 142.]
AYES
[12.46 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Benyon, W.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Balniel, Lord
Berry, Hn. Anthony


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Biffen, John


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Batsford, Brian
Biggs-Davison, John


Astor, John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Blaker, Peter


Atkins, Humphrey
Bell, Ronald
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)


Awdry, Daniel
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Body, Richard


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Boscawen, Robert







Bossom, Sir Clive
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Normanton, Tom


Bowden, Andrew
Harrison, Brian (Maiden)
Nott, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Cranley


Braine, Bernard
Hastings, Stephen
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Bray, Ronald
Havers, Michael
Osborn, John


Brewis, John
Hawkins, Paul
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Heseltine, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hicks, Robert
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Higgins, Terence L.
Peel, John


Bryan, Paul
Hiley, Joseph
Percival, Ian


Buchan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Buck, Antony
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Pink, R. Bonner


Burden, F. A.
Holland, Philip
Pounder, Rafton


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hordern, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Carlisle, Mark
Hornby, Richard
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Channon, Paul
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hunt, John
Ralson, Timothy


Churchill, W. S.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Iremonger, T. L.



Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcllffe)
James, David
Redmond, Robert


Clegg, Walter
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Cockeram, Eric
Jessel, Toby
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Cooke, Robert
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Coombs, Derek
Jopling, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cooper, A. E.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Ridsdale, Julian


Cormack, Patrick
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Certain, A. P.
Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Critchley, Julian
Kimball, Marcus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Crouch, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rost, Peter


Crowder, F. P.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Royle, Anthony


Curran, Charles
Kinsey, J. R.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kirk, Peter
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kitson, Timothy
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Knox, David
Scott, Nicholas


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Lambton, Antony
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dean, Paul
Lane, David
Sharples, Richard


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dixon, Piers
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Simeons, Charles


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Ian (Portsmouth, Langstone)
Skeet, T. H. H.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Longden, Gilbert
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Dykes, Hugh
Loveridge, John
Soref, Harold


Eden, Sir John
MacArthur Ian
Spence, John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McCrindle, R. A.
Sproat, Iain


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McLaren, Martin
Stainton, Keith


Emery, Peter
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Eyre, Reginald
McMaster, Stanley
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Farr, John
Macmillan, Maurine (Farnham)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fell Anthony
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stokes, John


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Filder, Michael
Maddan, Martin
Sutcliffe, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Madel, David
Tapsell, Peter


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Fortescue, Tim
Maude, Angus
Tebbit, Norman


Fowler, Norman
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Temple, John M.


Fox, Marcus
Mawby, Ray
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Fry, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gardner, Edward
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Tilney, John


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Trew, Peter


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire W.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Goodhew, Victor
Moate, Roger
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Gorst, John
Molyneaux, James
Vickers, Dame Joan


Gower, Raymond
Money, Ernie
Waddington, David


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Montgomery, Feruus
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Gray, Hamish
More, Jasper
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Green, Alan
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Grieve, Percy
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm
Wall, Patrick


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walters, Dennis


Grylls, Michael
Mudd, David
Ward, Dame Irene


Gummer, Selwyn
Murton, Oscar
Warren, Kenneth


Gurden, Harold
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Weatherill, Bernard


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Neave, Airey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hall-Davis, A. C. F.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)









Wilkinson, John
Worsley, Marcus
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Mr. Hector Monro and


Woodnutt, Mark
Younger, Hn. George
Mr. Keith Speed.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Ford, Ben
Marquand, David


Albu, Austen
Forrester, John
Marsh, Rt. Hon. Richard


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Allen, Scholefield
Freeson, Reginald
Mayhew, Christopher


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Meacher, Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Garrett, W. E.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Ashton, Joe
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mendelson, John


Atkinson, Norman
Ginsburg, David
Mikardo, Ian


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Golding, John
Milian, Bruce


Barnes, Michael
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Barnett, Joel
Gourlay, Harry
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Molloy, William


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bishop, E. S.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Booth, Albert
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Moyle, Roland


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Hardy, Peter
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bradley, Tom
Harper, Joseph
Murray, Ronald King


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ogden, Eric


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
O'Halloran, Michael


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hattersley, Roy
O'Malley, Brian


Buchan, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.
Oram, Bert


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hilton, W. S.
Orme, Stanley


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Horam, John
Oswald, Thomas


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Campbell, I. (Dumbartonshire, W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Palmer, Arthur


Cant, R. B.
Huckfield, Leslie
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Carter-Jones. Lewis (Eccles)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Castle-Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hunter, Adam
Pendry Tom


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Pentland, Norman


Cohen, Stanley
Janner, Greville
Perry, Ernest G.


Coleman, Donald
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Concannon, J. D.
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Prescott, John


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
John, Brynmor
Probert, Arthur


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Cronin, John
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Richard, Ivor


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cunningham, C. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Roderick, Caerwyr E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Darling, Rt Hn. George
Judd, Frank
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman, Gerald
Roper, John


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kelley, Richard
Rose, Paul B.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kinnock, Nell
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lambie, David
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lamond, James
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Deakins, Eric
Latham, Arthur
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lawson, George
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dempsey, James
Leonard, Dick



Doig, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dormand, J. D.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Silverman, Jullus


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Skinner, Dennis


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Small, William


Driberg, Tom
Lipton, Marcus
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lomas, Kenneth
Spearing, Nigel


Dunn, James A.
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunnett, Jack
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stallard, A. W.


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Edelman, Maurice
Mason, Dr. J. Dickson
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Edwards, Robert (BlIston)
McBride, Neil
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Edwards, William (Merfoneth)
McCartney, Hugh
Strang, Gavin


Ellis, Tom
McElhone, Frank
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


English, Michael
McGuire, Michael
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Evans, Fred
Mackenzie, Gregor
Swain, Thomas


Fernyhough, E.
Mackie, John
Taverne, Dick


Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Tinn, James


Foley, Maurice
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Tomney, Frank


Foot, Michael
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Torney, Tom







Tuck, Raphael
Weitzman, David
Willams, W. T. (Warrington)


Urwin, T. W.
Wellbeloved, James
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Valey, Eric G.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Wainwright, Edwin
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)



Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Whitlock, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. Kenneth Marks and


Wallace, George
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Mr. James Hamilton.


Watkins, David
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)